What Youtube ban?That's it... no more ac!d for this dude.
i so miss teh embed... damn youtube ban!!!
[youtube]yYz3E4MckSw[/youtube]
We are all G!ds.
- Thread starter wil
- Start date
[youtube]yYz3E4MckSw[/youtube]
I've read some darn interesting native stories that indicate they were fairly connected with spirit....
I'd go as far to say their society then.....much more than society as a whole today.
c0de
Vassal
- Messages
- 2,237
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
it be banned in China !!!!
YES!!! Duh!!!
That's the point. GOD can, cuz he's GOD.
You CAN'T, cuz you ain't.
I read you yourself say once that everything God does is good, and evil/pain only appears to us to be as a temporary illusion. Are you going back on this (rather beautiful and insightful) description?
Whether you are or not, still does not prove/disprove your idea that "we are all gods." This notion just makes no sense whatsoever. The only way you can even talk about it is by preaching it as a point of faith. Is that what you really want?
Gatekeeper
Shades of Reason
I think we are gods inasmuch as we are God like, made in Gods image, able to judge matters concerning our world (Magistrate) and in that we are ultimately responsible for ourselves, left to create a world of our choosing.
We are a powerful bunch, yet few realize just how powerful. We are able to create paradise on earth, just as we were able destroy the paradise we once knew. We are gods in this sense, but we are not the Father of all creation.
We are a powerful bunch, yet few realize just how powerful. We are able to create paradise on earth, just as we were able destroy the paradise we once knew. We are gods in this sense, but we are not the Father of all creation.
No, Wil, meaningless platitudes like this pepper 'get illumined the easy way' books, but really it's not an argument and it's not even logical.
So let's get back to the main point.
You ask for an interpretation of Scripture, and you got one you didn't like.
So you refute that exegesis by claiming that Scripture is beyond interpretation other than in a purely subjective sense ... which is logically nonsensical and self-refuting, because if you are right, then you are as wrong as everyone else you refute, unless for some reason you operate under a unique set of circumstances.
I have offered you the exegesis of acknowledged experts, and also pointed out you've made the simple error of not reading the text in context, but in isolation, and therefore putting on it any meaning you fancy.
So back to the question, and this time I'll simplify it for you.
When trying to understand a text, is it better to read the text in its context, or separate it from the dialogue and, as said, interpret it any way the fancy takes you?
Thomas
You seem to be confused, or are you trying to baffle me?
Are you saying that we are all Gods, but that God does not exist other than a property of human nature?
And are you therefore saying that God is subject to and conditioned by some external determination?
If not, can you explain this statement?
+++
No. Did you, before you latched on to this verse?
Let's review ...
You invited interpretations of a biblical text.
I offered an interpretation of the text, according to the context in which it is set.
You then refute that by sentimental appeal to 'it's amazing what people can come up with' — even though had I said what you wanted to hear, no doubt you would have praised that interpretation.
Your argument follws the line of:
Their interpretation is different from mine, ergo their's is silly and should be ridiculed.
Even though you have singularly failed to support your interpretation in the face of what, dare I say it, is a telling argument.
Even though you hold to your own interpretation, even when you insist that every and any interpretation is fallible. Anyone's else's, that is, yours is not, obviously?
+++
Yes, the psalmist was speaking ironically, as the 'gods' he refers to in one verse are doomed to die like mortals in the next.
Or did you not get that far?
And Yes, Christ was speaking ironically, and bitingly so ... and you have utterly missed the point, and what's worse you've read His irony as an assertion of your own divinity.
It's not even a question of translation, but simply 'how to read a text' — and the question is, should a text be read in context, or can one extrapolate a single verse, and interpret that any way one likes?
According to your own argument, there is no truth, just subjective determination ... how come only you know the truth?
I've got issues with your appeal to sentimentality to hide the fact you are unable to answer a simple question.
Wil — the very question rests on understanding what the characters are going through. But you've already negated that by saying it's impossible to derive any truth or objective meaning from Scripture.
Yet you cite Scripture as evidence of your own divinity ...
So back to the question, sentimentalisms aside, on what basis do you declare that we all all Gods?
Thomas
I don't believe G!d does anything. G!d doesn't 'do' good, G!d IS good. G!d doesn't love, G!d IS love.
Thomas, misread you. You were focusing on the one scripture, I thought you asked me to interpret the bible.
So I'll get back to yours...thomas said:
I provided my interpretation and reasoning....that which you didn't like.
But my quick response to your authorities....does everyone agree they are the authority and have the answers and the truth? Do the Bhuddists? The Atheists? The Protestants? The Muslims??
I don't believe I have all the truth...I believe I have mine, as you believe you have yours....choices Thomas, choices.
I must have missed it ... can you point me to where?
It's not a question of authority ... it's one of logic.
To repeat:
I am arguing the 'reading' of the text logically asserts the rebuke of the misuse of authority, by the Psalmist, and subsequently by Christ, who was referring to the Psalm.
You seem to be arguing that context is immaterial, and derive almost the opposite meaning.
I know, but when confronted by an argument we cannot refute, we have to examine our choices, if we are to be intellectually honest, not simply ignore them as inconvenient.
Can you either:
Logically explain the text as asserting the divine status of humanity, and/or
Find me one reference from your authorities to support your claim that the text in question infers the divinity of humanity?
Thomas
I don't believe I am divine....
I do believe 'I am' divine.
I believe we are the 3d manifestation of G!d.
I do believe 'I am' divine.
I believe we are the 3d manifestation of G!d.
c0de
Vassal
- Messages
- 2,237
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Not in the least ... wow what a misconception! And here, a man supposedly versed in the most fundamental of philosophical principles, yet apparently ignorant of that axiom:
The whole is GREATER than the sum of its parts!
Or, as it has also been put, the Greater always includes the lesser. Hmmm ...God gave us Free Will. You forgot about that one also? tsk tskThomas said:
It is said, "belief in a thing does not make it so." Correct, nor does your lack of belief change the facts.Thomas said:
Creating God in our own image as you say ... is to a certain degree unavoidable. This, Thomas, is because we have been created in His. Nor is it a male, or preeminently masculine Deity, no matter what the Catholic - or any other - religious body may tell us.
God is transcendent of all gender characterization or qualification as we humanly understand it, which fact cannot be grasped unless we accept that God is utterly transcendent of form altogether, though only in terms of an `ultimate.' The GROUND of God's Being is transcendent, even if we do at times forget that God is also IMMANENT ... and this is what Christ was referring to in His Scriptural reference - the subject of this thread.
The Transcendent aspect (or Aspects) of Triune Deity must not be mutually exclusive of Humanity - or potential Humanity - any more than the Immanent Aspects of same Deity. Thus Humanity has connection with, and existence within God's Being ... just as God has existence within ours. A Christmas song with which we are all familiar illustrates this beautifully, as `Israel' - which means struggle receives its Emmanuel, or Peace (and if "God is with us," does this not certainly include PEACE?).
{What is helpful at times, is a gentle reminder to those who wish to learn more that very clear teaching is available regarding what ARE the 3 Principles of Deity present within every human being - as the SOUL - and what ARE the reflection of these Principles into our lower nature, or personality.}
It seems clear that to remind us of our Sacred Duty, Sacred Heritage and Sacred Connection to God was what Christ was after when He referenced the Teachings in this instance. The prevailing view was, and is, one which needed a fresh injection of Wisdom, Clarity and Insight, which is ever the case when there is both a falling away from Right Understanding of the Gospel, as well as a decline in Virtue and practice thereof. Those familiar with Krishna's reminder in the Bhagavad-Gita will understand (Book IV, Sutra 5, 7, 8).
So Christ and His myriad of followers challenged the status quo then as they do today, not to revert to some former set of religious habits, customs or outward observances, if by these we are foolish and gullible enough to believe that simple repetitions and lip service are what God actually desires of us. This was pointed out time and again during Christ's day, but then, just as now, what the CLERGY wanted was to have nothing to do with this radical ... who would usurp their power and influence over the masses.
People still think, today as in Christ's time, that by warming the pews once a week, or visiting the synagogue as they have always done, that the world can be changed ~ somehow, someday ~ by a magical man up in the sky, who will either swoop down in some cloud of glory ... or send an all too human-like SON (talk about anthropomorphism) ... to rescue us from ourselves.
People are still unwilling, often enough, today just as then, to make those necessary but sometimes difficult CHANGES in their own individual and collective lifestyles (including both thought and habit, action and intention) ... which would make the approach of God possible, again in both the individual and the collective sense.
Imagine that instead of fighting amongst ourselves and playing these immature games of sibling rivalry over whose religion is the godliest, we were learning to CREATE - as one, Human FAMILY {a Brotherhood in the truest sense} ... not perfectly, at first, even though God has made it clear that THIS TOO is one day expected of us (John 14:12, Matt 5:48). But just imagine, that we learned to convert a portion of our defense budget into a veritable Peace Fund, whereby projects which were supportive of a national and world infrastructure of PEACE could be gradually established, instead of one of perpetual WAR. For we continue to FUND the latter, believing only that God will somehow mystically, magically and mysteriously bring to and end what we humans are apparently far too STUBBORN to end ourselves. Because we cannot, or because we REFUSE?
Christ sought to remind us that indeed, we are Gods because what we have within us is the POTENTIAL to do, even as God does, and learn to restrain our high and holy powers, REFRAINING from the urge or tendency to abuse what has been given us, and to convert (transmute, transform, transfigure) the baser instincts of our nature into their higher correspondence. Even a child can be taught that every angry outburst only hurts both self and other, while not one human being has ever lived who has enjoyed pain and sorrow over joyfulness, comfort and contentment. But here we continue to struggle, and Christians doubt that the Lord of the East taught the same Wisdom as the Christ, even while none can deny a word[/i] of what is taught by the Noble Eightfold Path.
Christ expected us to USE these God-given powers and innate abilities, not perfected by us until we have PRACTICED them upon the world stage ... in our lives, in our families, in our societies and within the world at large. Christ expected us to use what He taught us, then as He does now, because NEVER did he allow us to SCAPEGOAT one another, or even to blame it on the moon, however great our fascination with evil and with those who fall prey to their lower tendencies (yes, which exalted make of MAN the devil!).
Christ taught nothing to the people 2100 years ago that they were not capable of understanding, because like the Buddha, He was always able to reach the people where they were, understanding-wise. He could speak to a child, to an angry and rebellious youth, to a politician or tax-collector, and even to the clergy of His day, knowing especially well how out of tune and sync these were to the true Rhythm of Divine Life. He wanted to help them toward reform, then as He does now, because He knew their own Divine Potential, and saw perfectly what great Responsibility God was placing within them to help steward the spiritually hungry, feeding them on God's Truth, guiding them along the Way, just as the shepherd tends a flock.
Why, if this metaphor appeals to us, is it so difficult to accept that our potential is precisely the same as that which was once within Christ Jesus ... and which eventually HE was able to practice to Perfection? Could it be that we have lost Hope, lost Faith, within OURSELVES - as well as God? No, NEVER! We want to jump up and claim that God can do ANYthing, and God can do EVERYthing ... yet all we are willing to accept about ourselves, as has already been wisely pointed out ~ is that we are weak, we are meek, and we are small. We are far smaller than most of us might realize, if we knew but a fraction of what is taught in the mysteries. And the reality check, for those not paying attention, is that YOU CAN both heal cancer, and move mountains, IF, and that means IF, you *had* ... Faith, I believe it was? Or was Jesus just whistling Dixie?
Yes, I know some thinkers, and I know some Christians; these two don't have to be mutually exclusive, just sometimes. Learning to think with the heart, and feel with the head, that isn't so easy either. Mountains and mustard seed, hmmmm.Thomas said:
Jesus was certainly not whistling Dixie 2100 years ago, and there was no Catholic Church around to tell you otherwise, or to frame it all for us in some nice, rosy language. There was an existing clergy, and since Jesus was too radical, a threat to them, they had their Saviour crucified. Things are no different today; Christ is crucified daily. Lip service and bench-warming, or five prayers a day facing east ... it amounts to naught if we are not willing to put our money where our mouth is. And those who can't see beyond a strictly material interpretation of this saying abound, while ideas like a PEACE FUND, and real cooperation in order to establish Brotherhood on the planet, are sadly underfunded.
Some of us have no trouble at all accepting the Inner significance of what Christ meant when He spoke of our true potential, for we know that He also spoke of worlds beyond this world, and states of being which CANNOT be attained or experienced until self-Mastery has been achieved, GIVEN the tools which God has already given us. Instead of saying, "I can't, I can't; only God can, only God can," it would be better to acknowledge that GOD IN US ~ can do ANYTHING. And THAT would be a first step in opening doors which even the most clever-tongued, cunning-minded among us have failed to open within themselves.
If all of this seems harsh, remember, Truth hurts. It isn't concerned about bending itself to our narrow preconceptions or avoiding doing conflict with our entrenched attitudes and gross misconceptions. As *people* we may adopt a certain stance, and certainly it is with diplomacy and with tact that we will be able to overcome the obstacles to understanding which plague the common mind. But is only with courage and with a belief in the INDOMITABLE human Spirit (for all that is truly Spiritual is invincible and utterly incorruptible) that we shall be able to move forward, and relegate ignorance to the past on a large scale.
What does the esoteric Christian assert, as s/he always has, NOT just for the past 2000 years, but ever since humankind first began to stir? Only that the Christ slumbers within every human heart, and that this Divine Potential is what is meant by our "being created EQUAL." This equality of potential, if not acted upon directly, is only gradually - though inevitably - revealed, while its early acknowledgment and cooperation therewith leads us more swiftly along the path of both personal and spiritual self-development.
Many know these truths innately, or find them returning to the conscious mind quite easily, while the foolish deny their own potential, and embrace instead weakness and helplessness. Is it any wonder that they flounder, and lose precious time waiting for someone else to lend a hand? The Master can assist along the way, but every single one of us must learn, sooner or later, that He cannot, simply CANNOT, do for us, what we are not willing to do for ourselves. The joke about the flood, and the man who refuses help in the form of two rowboats and a helicopter, comes to mind.
In short, the esotericist acknowledges what Christ Himself taught regarding the God within, and asserts that it is as true today as it ever was. To believe that Deity is so shortsighted, dimwitted or lacking innovation as to DESIGN a Humanity according to a PLAN to begin with, is tantamount to asserting that our OWN human will, imagination and powers of creativity are greater. Besides blasphemous, this is pure anthropomorphism, plus doubt and a good bit of plain old dullness. Having created our God in our own image, it isn't surprising that we doubt God's abilities, just as we have become accustomed to self-doubt, even utter disparagement.
What happened to the kind of POSITIVE outlook on the world situation which Christ was able to instill in His followers, even when He Himself knew what trials and tribulations we all must face along life's path, and even while He was able to foresee what the future held for us all, before our world could be born anew? Christ could foresee it all, yet the only time He is said to have wept was with Mary, regarding Lazarus - although then, as often, no one seemed to understand.
It seems to me a fundamental shift both in our understanding of our own, personal selves - from being APART FROM to being CONNECTED WITH our God - as well as the changing paradigm FROM one of greed, mutual enmity and world domination TO one of Peaceful cooperation toward mutually recognized GOOD, common goals (communal, societal, national) ... this is not changed from the last time Christ walked openly upon the planet, even if other circumstances - including much progress along various lines - warrants a different message from the Lord of Love this time around.
One thing He can certainly be expected to do - and some of us believe that He has been doing so for nearly 150 years - and that is to instruct us further on what is our true nature, including how we can transform what is undesirable within our lower self into that which is "pleasing to the Lord," as it often appears Biblically.
May we ALL come to understand this with Grace and with Insight, and renew our pledge to assist with Christ's Reappearance!
Namaskar
~andrew~
Hi Andrew —
I said: Because if 'we' are God, then your God is composite, contingent and relative, will increase and decrease (according to population), and at some point did not exist, and at some future point will cease to exist ...
The Tradition conceives God to be (whilst transcending all qualities and qualifications of being as such) Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Absolute, Infinite, impassible, Immutable, Simple, One, and the same Tradition conceives man to be finite, contingent ...
Whilst one might say that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, with which I agree, nevertheless, each part is wholly human in itself, each and every human is wholly of that nature, in that sense, the 'greater sum' is only in the accidents, the diversity, which no single instance can adequately signify.
Indeed, your own argument that 'the greater always includes the lesser' is axiomatic, in that the higher necessarily precedes the lower, but the lower does not comprise the higher of itself, which is the crux of the matter.
The Higher might well be immanently present to the lower, but that does not allow the lower to identify the higher as itself.
I have not forgotten free will ... indeed I'd like to see you explain how free will thereby implies the divinity of he who wills?
Freedom, in this case of the will, is the greatest gift of God after the gift of existence, for freedom is a quality of our existence ... but even our freedom is contingent, because we are contingent. Or put another way, if the fact that we exist is no proof of our (supposed) divinity, a subsequent quality cannot be a proof either.
But the main point is, that is not what the text was saying. What Christ was doing was highlighting the hypocrisy of His accusers. As ever, the text has to be read in context and not in isolation, when it can be bent to suit almost any error.
The Absolute is under no obligation nor sequent to any determination whatsoever.
Andrew — nothing in your argument points to human nature being inherently divine.
My point is that human nature can be deified by Gift and Grace, indeed it is deiform in its foundation for that very purpose ... but you, in the light of God's gift of the cognizance of His own Being (which, as you admit, transcends our comprehension in every degree) then go on to assume that because you can talk to God, you are His equal.
We're right back in the Garden, looking at the Fruit, listening to a voice telling us He's no better than us ... all we have to do is reach for it ... to seek to possess it as our own.
God bless,
Thomas
I said: Because if 'we' are God, then your God is composite, contingent and relative, will increase and decrease (according to population), and at some point did not exist, and at some future point will cease to exist ...
For the sake of clarity, can I point out we are discussing God in the Christian Tradition — that is the text Wil was referring to, not the god of some other tradition, nor any individual notion of what God might or might not be?
The Tradition conceives God to be (whilst transcending all qualities and qualifications of being as such) Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Absolute, Infinite, impassible, Immutable, Simple, One, and the same Tradition conceives man to be finite, contingent ...
Whilst one might say that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, with which I agree, nevertheless, each part is wholly human in itself, each and every human is wholly of that nature, in that sense, the 'greater sum' is only in the accidents, the diversity, which no single instance can adequately signify.
Indeed, your own argument that 'the greater always includes the lesser' is axiomatic, in that the higher necessarily precedes the lower, but the lower does not comprise the higher of itself, which is the crux of the matter.
The Higher might well be immanently present to the lower, but that does not allow the lower to identify the higher as itself.
Please try and contain your sarcasm, it does you no justice ... or at least make sure your argument is bulletproof, else you make yourself look silly.
I have not forgotten free will ... indeed I'd like to see you explain how free will thereby implies the divinity of he who wills?
Freedom, in this case of the will, is the greatest gift of God after the gift of existence, for freedom is a quality of our existence ... but even our freedom is contingent, because we are contingent. Or put another way, if the fact that we exist is no proof of our (supposed) divinity, a subsequent quality cannot be a proof either.
Indeed not ... but were we gods, as Wil supposes, then it would.
Quite so.
Nor do we claim so ... rather, we use such terms in reference to relation, and so point towards a profound Mystery, which may have escaped you.
Well as what you're saying is not only Catholic doctrine, but couched in Catholic language, I wonder who you think you're informing of what.
But the main point is, that is not what the text was saying. What Christ was doing was highlighting the hypocrisy of His accusers. As ever, the text has to be read in context and not in isolation, when it can be bent to suit almost any error.
Ah ... sadly you've hoist yourself on the word 'must' — there is no reason at all why God 'must' reveal Himself in any way at all in our Tradition. That He chooses to is something else.
The Absolute is under no obligation nor sequent to any determination whatsoever.
Here I suggest you make the promethean error of assuming that because you are dependent on God for your existence, God is dependent upon your existence for His, which is a nonsense.
Andrew — nothing in your argument points to human nature being inherently divine.
My point is that human nature can be deified by Gift and Grace, indeed it is deiform in its foundation for that very purpose ... but you, in the light of God's gift of the cognizance of His own Being (which, as you admit, transcends our comprehension in every degree) then go on to assume that because you can talk to God, you are His equal.
We're right back in the Garden, looking at the Fruit, listening to a voice telling us He's no better than us ... all we have to do is reach for it ... to seek to possess it as our own.
God bless,
Thomas
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Good afternoon, Thomas. I have a lengthy response, but for the sake of clarity I have broken it into two parts, not counting a third, in which I'll eventually get around to replying to the rest of your thoughts. The entire point of a diagram (which I include in post #2), and its explanation, is summed up in the last few paragraphs of this post ... if you are short on time.
Or is it? How very disingenuous, yet utterly predictable of you to attempt at the outset to set up a straw man! Not so easily shall you edge me out, with some kind of, "You're not speaking the same language!" I'm simply weighing in on what I think Christ was driving at, and for that I do not need the Pope, Vatican dogma, or anything else Roman Catholicism has to offer. I've done quite alright without them until this point; you will understand if I find no use for them all of a sudden here.
If your argument is that God is not a composite being, but one transcendent, then I do not disagree. But if you claim that that Aspect {the Transcendent} of Deity is unbeknownst either to or by God's manifest Aspects, then you speak as one who both knows these several Aspects of God, firsthand, and who has the authority to state clearly that God Transcendent is unknown by God Immanent, or vice versa, or both. Is this the case?
No, I didn't think so. Let's see what else ...
My tradition, and Christianity as Christ taught it, teaches that man and God are not mutually exclusive. As such, I have an understanding of how I connect with God, how you connect with God, how Christ connects with God (expressing, perfectly, the 2nd Aspect for our planet, while we express that same Aspect ... though not perfectly, as yet) ... and how the world connects with God.
All of this is Biblical, mind you, and I am not relying on the Pope, or any doctrine other than that which was preached by Christ Jesus, for my authority ... except for the verification of said doctrine as I have been able to achieve through my own experience, as the Master instructed us. Recall?
If you're going to agree that something is true in principle, then be sure you have adequate understanding of the PRINCIPLES involved. Human consciousness, as ONE of these {Principles} does not just suddenly STOP with your, or my, finite MIND. N'est pas? When Christ speaks of a "Peace which PASSETH Understanding," He not only affirms the Mind-Transcendent Principle of our HUMAN Consciousness, He also affirms the Bliss-Transcendent Principle. If your tradition does not acknowledge such Principles, then please do not assume that mine, as a believing Christian, also suffers in the same respect.
Now if you prefer to focus on (i.e., label) these levels of consciousness as Divine Awareness or semi-Divine awareness, since indeed, we share it with Angelic Hierarchies (oh, your doctrines tell you all about those now, right?) ... then please, by all means, let us just stop bandying about as if we know things that others cannot, or have insights and modes of perception which are unavailable to the rest of our peers. Christ spoke to us about what we might behold if our hearts and minds were pure and dedicated ... or was this, too, left out of the latter-day Roman Catholic traditions which you are so wont and so determined to uphold?
In short, the Greater includes the lesser, just as the lesser includes the least, as well as everything that is in between. These, my old Trinitarian Friend, are what we call The Trinity ... or, in the Christian Tradition: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For let no man ignorant of his own nature dare to declare otherwise, forgetting that as a part of God's Creation he is GREAT, even though within that same Creation there is much that is { ~ and there are HOSTS Which are ~ } GREATER, even while we may, as the Philosopher does, affirm the GREATEST.
Now you will find in no place in Cosmos this lack of a Trinity of, and in, manifestation {not in atom, not in Cosmos Itself, nor in THAT BEING or BEINGNESS out of which all hath sprung}... though you will in some places find conditions wherein one Aspect may prevail over another, or over both of the others. Hence the Principle of Balance, whereby a Higher Perfection, may be envisioned as existing Transcendent of a lower imperfection, yet whereby the latter is held entirely within the Being and boundaries of that Greater Trinity, even while that lower imperfection reflects imperfectly as yet said Trinity.
Here are your Seven Principles ~ the Three you know, a fourth, Balance, and three you may call Order, Devotion and concrete Ideation. And when outermost Order within our world has been rightly established in Harmony with this principle of Balance, with right governance of Ideation and through proper Devotion to God ... then you shall see the world we all, secretly or otherwise, desire.
But yes, the Greater includes the lesser, and without the Greater, the lesser cannot exist, for God did not create the world and set it apart from Himself. God did not fashion man as a mutually exclusive being, for a Spark of that same God exists within everyman, even as the fullness of everyman and of ALL men rests ~ ENTIRELY ~ within that Being we call God.
Why is this so difficult for us, some of us, sometimes, to get our minds around?
Remember ... "the mind is the greater slayer of the Real." Indeed,
You may, but in the last analysis, your individual notion is all that you, or I, or anyone else can possibly have.
Or is it? How very disingenuous, yet utterly predictable of you to attempt at the outset to set up a straw man! Not so easily shall you edge me out, with some kind of, "You're not speaking the same language!" I'm simply weighing in on what I think Christ was driving at, and for that I do not need the Pope, Vatican dogma, or anything else Roman Catholicism has to offer. I've done quite alright without them until this point; you will understand if I find no use for them all of a sudden here.
If your argument is that God is not a composite being, but one transcendent, then I do not disagree. But if you claim that that Aspect {the Transcendent} of Deity is unbeknownst either to or by God's manifest Aspects, then you speak as one who both knows these several Aspects of God, firsthand, and who has the authority to state clearly that God Transcendent is unknown by God Immanent, or vice versa, or both. Is this the case?
No, I didn't think so. Let's see what else ...
Which Tradition? Yours? The Roman Catholic catechism?Thomas said:
My tradition, and Christianity as Christ taught it, teaches that man and God are not mutually exclusive. As such, I have an understanding of how I connect with God, how you connect with God, how Christ connects with God (expressing, perfectly, the 2nd Aspect for our planet, while we express that same Aspect ... though not perfectly, as yet) ... and how the world connects with God.
All of this is Biblical, mind you, and I am not relying on the Pope, or any doctrine other than that which was preached by Christ Jesus, for my authority ... except for the verification of said doctrine as I have been able to achieve through my own experience, as the Master instructed us. Recall?
Again, if you are ignorant of our Identity on a greater level, wherein Christ, a yogin, a Buddha, or any one of us in moments of mystical attainment or Insight is able to prove otherwise, then be careful in your assumptions to preface them with, "Thus I believe" or "This is what I have always assumed." For in this case, your beliefs are incorrect. Or at least, they run directly contrary to my own experiences ... and I dare say there are others here who can say likewise, or who may be inclined to lean in that direction. To wit:Thomas said:
If you're going to agree that something is true in principle, then be sure you have adequate understanding of the PRINCIPLES involved. Human consciousness, as ONE of these {Principles} does not just suddenly STOP with your, or my, finite MIND. N'est pas? When Christ speaks of a "Peace which PASSETH Understanding," He not only affirms the Mind-Transcendent Principle of our HUMAN Consciousness, He also affirms the Bliss-Transcendent Principle. If your tradition does not acknowledge such Principles, then please do not assume that mine, as a believing Christian, also suffers in the same respect.
Now if you prefer to focus on (i.e., label) these levels of consciousness as Divine Awareness or semi-Divine awareness, since indeed, we share it with Angelic Hierarchies (oh, your doctrines tell you all about those now, right?) ... then please, by all means, let us just stop bandying about as if we know things that others cannot, or have insights and modes of perception which are unavailable to the rest of our peers. Christ spoke to us about what we might behold if our hearts and minds were pure and dedicated ... or was this, too, left out of the latter-day Roman Catholic traditions which you are so wont and so determined to uphold?
Yes, but they are not mutually exclusive, and you seem to think that the Greater is not sufficiently mirrored into the lower, and then you take up the Pope, the Vatican, and the entire HUMAN clerical system - with all its foibles and follies - as if these were necessary in order for us to experience something of that HIGHER. You forget, in all your preaching and theological wrangling, that it was for THIS that Christ was born ~ for the building of the BRIDGE between Highest God and lowest Man (if we include Man's animal, vegetable and mineral aspects of being), wherever man might be found, and in whatever conditions.Thomas said:
Yes and no. There is something called, "Acting as if," and in simple terms, this is part of the process of Divine At-One-ment ... which I think you and quite a few other folks might have gotten confused with some kind of mystical, magical, miraculous "all-at-once" `translation' ... and those translations, I'm afraid ... ah, well, I'm afraid there may have been something lost in, umm ...Thomas said:
In short, the Greater includes the lesser, just as the lesser includes the least, as well as everything that is in between. These, my old Trinitarian Friend, are what we call The Trinity ... or, in the Christian Tradition: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For let no man ignorant of his own nature dare to declare otherwise, forgetting that as a part of God's Creation he is GREAT, even though within that same Creation there is much that is { ~ and there are HOSTS Which are ~ } GREATER, even while we may, as the Philosopher does, affirm the GREATEST.
Now you will find in no place in Cosmos this lack of a Trinity of, and in, manifestation {not in atom, not in Cosmos Itself, nor in THAT BEING or BEINGNESS out of which all hath sprung}... though you will in some places find conditions wherein one Aspect may prevail over another, or over both of the others. Hence the Principle of Balance, whereby a Higher Perfection, may be envisioned as existing Transcendent of a lower imperfection, yet whereby the latter is held entirely within the Being and boundaries of that Greater Trinity, even while that lower imperfection reflects imperfectly as yet said Trinity.
Here are your Seven Principles ~ the Three you know, a fourth, Balance, and three you may call Order, Devotion and concrete Ideation. And when outermost Order within our world has been rightly established in Harmony with this principle of Balance, with right governance of Ideation and through proper Devotion to God ... then you shall see the world we all, secretly or otherwise, desire.
But yes, the Greater includes the lesser, and without the Greater, the lesser cannot exist, for God did not create the world and set it apart from Himself. God did not fashion man as a mutually exclusive being, for a Spark of that same God exists within everyman, even as the fullness of everyman and of ALL men rests ~ ENTIRELY ~ within that Being we call God.
Why is this so difficult for us, some of us, sometimes, to get our minds around?
Remember ... "the mind is the greater slayer of the Real." Indeed,
Let the disciple slay the slayer!
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Part II - with Symbolism
Thomas, and others,
As I say, it was for BRIDGING work that Christ was born (into Cosmos, into Man) ~ and on our planet this currently means for the building of the BRIDGE between Highest God and lowest Man. Here, I'll give you a visual way to understand it, since symbol appeals to some:
In this symbol, you will find a blue background. This represents the Unknowable ABSOLUTE. We cannot pretend to know aught about it, nor should we confound it with anything that comes next ... that is, during a period of Cosmic Manifestation. I realize that you may, or may not accept the recurring cycles, yet they are writ into the seasons, the ages of man, and into all of the other heavenly {i.e., astronomical} cycles which we can observe. Deny them, and we may as well say that God, and Christ, and even Humanity ... are not.
Against the blue background is the fivefold manifestation of God which includes all Kingdoms - both inclusive of Humanity and Transcendent of us - which directly influence us upon the planet. In These we live, and move, and have our being ... as do the animals, vegetables and minerals, and also the Angels.
Now, you may choose to equate Mankind with the animal kingdom, as does modern science, yet this was not Christ's teaching, nor the belief of the early Christians, and certainly it is not that of most anyone who both has a pet and is spiritually-minded. For the simple reason that Man has an active intellect and self-reflecting awareness, He is usually regarded in spiritual and religious teachings as greater than the animals.
Thus, we have our Five Kingdoms, represented by the STAR behind the rest of the figure ... which Star certainly represents God in One sense of God's Transcendence. Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipotent and so forth, certainly, as far as both we and the {relatively local} orders of Angels are concerned. This Star, remember, is not `God the ABSOLUTE,' as such cannot be shown in shape or form, even symbolically ... which fact every Muslim knows well, and guards well, if misunderstand by so many of his brothers in the west.
But what have we within the greatest circle of man's being? What within the central oval, and what within the innermost? What might the central CRUX, in white, represent? And the other symbols?
I suspect that you could tell me, but lest there be any confusion ... here is how I understand them ~ and such is the CHRISTIANITY in which I believe, not a Churchianity, for certain, nor anything that anyone else has dictated to me, or something artificial and purely theoretical, philosophical, intellectual or symbolic. For Thomas, my experience and my experiences tell me this is so!
In the smallest oval, first, which is yellow and toward the bottom of the circle, we have the outermost Consciousness of a person, which includes all that we mean by physical, emotional and intellectual awareness. This consciousness, however, is not limited in the ways that you apparently believe - or certainly imply, when you mention "the accidents, the diversity, which no single instance can adequately signify."
For here, you see, we are back to the question of whether or not God is manifest ~ and yes, I mean already manifest ~ within every single human heart {and mind, body, Soul, etc.}. For my belief, I turn both to Scripture and to experience, each of which I have been able to confirm in conjunction, or triangulation, so to speak, with my neighbor. Were I to claim my belief alone, or my faith for my support, I might easily understand your lack thereof, or your doubt and disbelief. But as I say, I am well familiar with Plato's Allegory of the Cave, and where I come from, those things that CREATE the shadows, the FORMS ... and not[/i] the outermost projections thereof, are most substantial.
Yes, of course we are speaking of Ideas here, and this is why I represent that portion of our consciousness in bright yellow. Not anyone who does not know true Understanding, at least on some level, from time to time, can claim to experience the Higher Mind. If you cannot, please do not assume that the same limitation applies to myself, or others. If you can, then you know that man's Consciousness is NOT without association, connection and thus contact with the Divine.
You know, contact, like that vital moment at which the propeller begins to turn, and when our vessel becomes capable of ascending Heavenward. Or, as the Moodies put it, "Thinking is the best way to tra-vel!" {Did you remember your beanie hat?}
There is another oval, and this next one is pink, or rosy. It represents the Soul as Christ taught it. It is in one sense a dual Principle (one portion in manifestation, one portion transcendent), though in another it is certainly a triplicity, yet ~ like God and like Man ~ it is always essentially ONE. But, you knew this, correct?
More on that in a bit. Notice something about the rosy oval: It is GREATER than, yet not exclusive of, the yellow and lesser one.
There is a Greatest sphere of Consciousness, as far as Man is concerned, and this is represented by the light blue. Here is that PEACE which is Greater even than Divine Understanding. It is the Voice of the Silence, and only when we are completely still in our personality consciousness may we experience it.
Again, notice that the light blue sphere, call it what you wish, INCLUDES the lesser, rosy oval as well as the least of these, the bright yellow. The symbols within these areas of our Divine Awareness should be apparent for any true TRINITARIAN. Let's see, Thomas ...
First of all, the Crown symbol, I'm sure you realize, suggests the WILL, or 1st Aspect. Appropriately enough I borrowed a symbol right out of your own `Tradition,' using the Sacred Heart to represent the 2nd Aspect. And for the 3rd Aspect, I chose the Hand in Blessing, suggestive of both the Holy Spirit in its Revelatory and Enlightening aspect, as well as of Humanity itself, which most certainly has the capacity - though we are wont to demonstrate it - of carrying forth the Divine Blessing of Christ, even of God, if we so choose.
The Crown has two places: One, it resides within its `own Aspect,' the light blue ... and while you are correct, this is not the thread for launching into esoteric correlations, I should at least mention that the TRADITION sometimes calls this KETHER. The other location of the Crown is atop our own `HEAD,' i.e., it symbolizes that LINK within every Human's outermost layer of awareness, which, even if unawakened, solidly links us to `Our Father, Who art in Heaven. {There are 972 petals in the crown, but again, not all are familiar with Gnostic, esoteric, or Eastern teachings ... yet.}
Now the Sacred Heart again has two placements: One, it exists to show its own element, macrocosmically speaking, or Aspect and Principle, in the case of both Human being and Christ. In short, it is the `Christ within,' spoken of by the Apostle, who was well familiar with the Mysteries. In the rosy oval, on the plane of Soul Consciousness wherein Divine Understanding prevails and confusion, doubt, despair and disbelief are not, Christ reigns Supreme. Hence the word choice and phraseology for the 3rd through 6th lines of the Pater Noster.
You will note that I copy this symbol of the Sacred Heart into the yellow oval, and this symbolizes the `Christ in us' of St. Paul, not yet perfected in the case of most of us, as you point out. And technically you are incorrect in your wording, for it is precisely because the Christ dwells within us that: a) we are able to reach toward God and Christ, and b) Christ and God are able to reach toward us. This, technically speaking, IS IDENTIFICATION. It is the ONLY way that the lower can identify with the Higher ... and vice versa!
Remember, as I have always asserted, we CANNOT experience anything of God or of God-Consciousness, including either CHRIST, or what you call the Holy Spirit {Higher Mind, or that which is present within each of us as its SPARK, the Ray of Understanding} ... without the capacity for God to reach within us and stimulate what is already there. Again, here is a thoroughly solid, Biblical Teaching ... yet one which Churchianity, and perhaps the modern Roman Catholic catechism, may have abandoned.
In the last analysis, it is up to you and I to decide whether we shall prepare room for Understanding, and for Peace within our hearts and minds, and without these, neither Christ, nor God, nor even the Ray of the Holy Spirit can do aught to "enter in." HOW is it possible for poor, feeble, meek little Humanity to do such things? Does it sound like a catch-22? Only to your logical mind, Thomas. What exists within us IN POTENTIA is the DIVINE Potential ... and it is when we have PRACTICED, and Practiced much that we shall ~ as Christ taught and expects of us ~ become, AS OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN, Perfect.
Thus the third and final oval of consciousness, that of bright yellow symbolizing the entirety of man's NORMAL mode of awareness ~ and even reaching into that realm which Plato called the FORMS, aka, Divine Mind or Higher Mind ... has within it but one symbol, the Hands in Blessing, because this is man's native, innate ability, suggesting FREE WILL, as it is certainly our own, individual choice whether we lift our hand in Blessing or in damnation, showing either aggression or Goodwill, and either serving God or ... self, selfishness, Satan.
This symbol, the hand, rests firmly upon the GROUND of our outer, physical being - wherein our innermost powers of volition are aptly reflected into an individualized, physical form {something you like to emphasize time and time again} - and this symbol does not need to be repeated in the diagram.
One last symbol, the white cross which stretches from the bright yellow oval innermost (our outermost awareness, relative to that of Deity), through the rosy, and through the light blue sphere ~ linking these as it also Transcends them ~ ... this CROSS connects up with the Five-Pointed, Transcending STAR. And this STAR of Divine Awareness, again, represents "The Father's House," which Christ told us we may one day attain (to), yet which, certainly, we cannot "except we attain it via the Christ," and to which we were told once, 2100 years ago, we could not go at Christ's Ascension ... for then we were not prepared, even if some few have managed to make those preparations in the interim {and enter in}.
Yes, I know exactly what I'm talking about, and don't give a flyin' hoot whether you believe it or not. It makes not one hill of beans difference to me whether you accept what I believe. But Thomas, saying a thing ain't so, just don't make it false, any more than an affirmation makes a falsehood into a truth. So hum on that for awhile ... and I'll bang out something in response to the rest of your thoughts shortly.
Thomas, and others,
As I say, it was for BRIDGING work that Christ was born (into Cosmos, into Man) ~ and on our planet this currently means for the building of the BRIDGE between Highest God and lowest Man. Here, I'll give you a visual way to understand it, since symbol appeals to some:
In this symbol, you will find a blue background. This represents the Unknowable ABSOLUTE. We cannot pretend to know aught about it, nor should we confound it with anything that comes next ... that is, during a period of Cosmic Manifestation. I realize that you may, or may not accept the recurring cycles, yet they are writ into the seasons, the ages of man, and into all of the other heavenly {i.e., astronomical} cycles which we can observe. Deny them, and we may as well say that God, and Christ, and even Humanity ... are not.
Against the blue background is the fivefold manifestation of God which includes all Kingdoms - both inclusive of Humanity and Transcendent of us - which directly influence us upon the planet. In These we live, and move, and have our being ... as do the animals, vegetables and minerals, and also the Angels.
Now, you may choose to equate Mankind with the animal kingdom, as does modern science, yet this was not Christ's teaching, nor the belief of the early Christians, and certainly it is not that of most anyone who both has a pet and is spiritually-minded. For the simple reason that Man has an active intellect and self-reflecting awareness, He is usually regarded in spiritual and religious teachings as greater than the animals.
Thus, we have our Five Kingdoms, represented by the STAR behind the rest of the figure ... which Star certainly represents God in One sense of God's Transcendence. Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipotent and so forth, certainly, as far as both we and the {relatively local} orders of Angels are concerned. This Star, remember, is not `God the ABSOLUTE,' as such cannot be shown in shape or form, even symbolically ... which fact every Muslim knows well, and guards well, if misunderstand by so many of his brothers in the west.
But what have we within the greatest circle of man's being? What within the central oval, and what within the innermost? What might the central CRUX, in white, represent? And the other symbols?
I suspect that you could tell me, but lest there be any confusion ... here is how I understand them ~ and such is the CHRISTIANITY in which I believe, not a Churchianity, for certain, nor anything that anyone else has dictated to me, or something artificial and purely theoretical, philosophical, intellectual or symbolic. For Thomas, my experience and my experiences tell me this is so!
In the smallest oval, first, which is yellow and toward the bottom of the circle, we have the outermost Consciousness of a person, which includes all that we mean by physical, emotional and intellectual awareness. This consciousness, however, is not limited in the ways that you apparently believe - or certainly imply, when you mention "the accidents, the diversity, which no single instance can adequately signify."
For here, you see, we are back to the question of whether or not God is manifest ~ and yes, I mean already manifest ~ within every single human heart {and mind, body, Soul, etc.}. For my belief, I turn both to Scripture and to experience, each of which I have been able to confirm in conjunction, or triangulation, so to speak, with my neighbor. Were I to claim my belief alone, or my faith for my support, I might easily understand your lack thereof, or your doubt and disbelief. But as I say, I am well familiar with Plato's Allegory of the Cave, and where I come from, those things that CREATE the shadows, the FORMS ... and not[/i] the outermost projections thereof, are most substantial.
Yes, of course we are speaking of Ideas here, and this is why I represent that portion of our consciousness in bright yellow. Not anyone who does not know true Understanding, at least on some level, from time to time, can claim to experience the Higher Mind. If you cannot, please do not assume that the same limitation applies to myself, or others. If you can, then you know that man's Consciousness is NOT without association, connection and thus contact with the Divine.
You know, contact, like that vital moment at which the propeller begins to turn, and when our vessel becomes capable of ascending Heavenward. Or, as the Moodies put it, "Thinking is the best way to tra-vel!" {Did you remember your beanie hat?}
There is another oval, and this next one is pink, or rosy. It represents the Soul as Christ taught it. It is in one sense a dual Principle (one portion in manifestation, one portion transcendent), though in another it is certainly a triplicity, yet ~ like God and like Man ~ it is always essentially ONE. But, you knew this, correct?
More on that in a bit. Notice something about the rosy oval: It is GREATER than, yet not exclusive of, the yellow and lesser one.
There is a Greatest sphere of Consciousness, as far as Man is concerned, and this is represented by the light blue. Here is that PEACE which is Greater even than Divine Understanding. It is the Voice of the Silence, and only when we are completely still in our personality consciousness may we experience it.
Again, notice that the light blue sphere, call it what you wish, INCLUDES the lesser, rosy oval as well as the least of these, the bright yellow. The symbols within these areas of our Divine Awareness should be apparent for any true TRINITARIAN. Let's see, Thomas ...
First of all, the Crown symbol, I'm sure you realize, suggests the WILL, or 1st Aspect. Appropriately enough I borrowed a symbol right out of your own `Tradition,' using the Sacred Heart to represent the 2nd Aspect. And for the 3rd Aspect, I chose the Hand in Blessing, suggestive of both the Holy Spirit in its Revelatory and Enlightening aspect, as well as of Humanity itself, which most certainly has the capacity - though we are wont to demonstrate it - of carrying forth the Divine Blessing of Christ, even of God, if we so choose.
The Crown has two places: One, it resides within its `own Aspect,' the light blue ... and while you are correct, this is not the thread for launching into esoteric correlations, I should at least mention that the TRADITION sometimes calls this KETHER. The other location of the Crown is atop our own `HEAD,' i.e., it symbolizes that LINK within every Human's outermost layer of awareness, which, even if unawakened, solidly links us to `Our Father, Who art in Heaven. {There are 972 petals in the crown, but again, not all are familiar with Gnostic, esoteric, or Eastern teachings ... yet.}
Now the Sacred Heart again has two placements: One, it exists to show its own element, macrocosmically speaking, or Aspect and Principle, in the case of both Human being and Christ. In short, it is the `Christ within,' spoken of by the Apostle, who was well familiar with the Mysteries. In the rosy oval, on the plane of Soul Consciousness wherein Divine Understanding prevails and confusion, doubt, despair and disbelief are not, Christ reigns Supreme. Hence the word choice and phraseology for the 3rd through 6th lines of the Pater Noster.
You will note that I copy this symbol of the Sacred Heart into the yellow oval, and this symbolizes the `Christ in us' of St. Paul, not yet perfected in the case of most of us, as you point out. And technically you are incorrect in your wording, for it is precisely because the Christ dwells within us that: a) we are able to reach toward God and Christ, and b) Christ and God are able to reach toward us. This, technically speaking, IS IDENTIFICATION. It is the ONLY way that the lower can identify with the Higher ... and vice versa!
Remember, as I have always asserted, we CANNOT experience anything of God or of God-Consciousness, including either CHRIST, or what you call the Holy Spirit {Higher Mind, or that which is present within each of us as its SPARK, the Ray of Understanding} ... without the capacity for God to reach within us and stimulate what is already there. Again, here is a thoroughly solid, Biblical Teaching ... yet one which Churchianity, and perhaps the modern Roman Catholic catechism, may have abandoned.
In the last analysis, it is up to you and I to decide whether we shall prepare room for Understanding, and for Peace within our hearts and minds, and without these, neither Christ, nor God, nor even the Ray of the Holy Spirit can do aught to "enter in." HOW is it possible for poor, feeble, meek little Humanity to do such things? Does it sound like a catch-22? Only to your logical mind, Thomas. What exists within us IN POTENTIA is the DIVINE Potential ... and it is when we have PRACTICED, and Practiced much that we shall ~ as Christ taught and expects of us ~ become, AS OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN, Perfect.
Thus the third and final oval of consciousness, that of bright yellow symbolizing the entirety of man's NORMAL mode of awareness ~ and even reaching into that realm which Plato called the FORMS, aka, Divine Mind or Higher Mind ... has within it but one symbol, the Hands in Blessing, because this is man's native, innate ability, suggesting FREE WILL, as it is certainly our own, individual choice whether we lift our hand in Blessing or in damnation, showing either aggression or Goodwill, and either serving God or ... self, selfishness, Satan.
This symbol, the hand, rests firmly upon the GROUND of our outer, physical being - wherein our innermost powers of volition are aptly reflected into an individualized, physical form {something you like to emphasize time and time again} - and this symbol does not need to be repeated in the diagram.
One last symbol, the white cross which stretches from the bright yellow oval innermost (our outermost awareness, relative to that of Deity), through the rosy, and through the light blue sphere ~ linking these as it also Transcends them ~ ... this CROSS connects up with the Five-Pointed, Transcending STAR. And this STAR of Divine Awareness, again, represents "The Father's House," which Christ told us we may one day attain (to), yet which, certainly, we cannot "except we attain it via the Christ," and to which we were told once, 2100 years ago, we could not go at Christ's Ascension ... for then we were not prepared, even if some few have managed to make those preparations in the interim {and enter in}.
Yes, I know exactly what I'm talking about, and don't give a flyin' hoot whether you believe it or not. It makes not one hill of beans difference to me whether you accept what I believe. But Thomas, saying a thing ain't so, just don't make it false, any more than an affirmation makes a falsehood into a truth. So hum on that for awhile ... and I'll bang out something in response to the rest of your thoughts shortly.
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
P.S. - If you still need a hint, and if the diagram seems to indicate that the yellow sphere already encompasses pretty much 99.9% of our active, even semi-active consciousness, then consider this:
First of all, flip the familiar percentage, and you'll be onto some more symbolism. It isn't, and has never been, very veiled. Those with an open mind will understand the association with the following quote from "The Song of the Lord," in which the Lord tells us:
And finally, consider the Eastern symbol of the Yin-Yang. Remember that the positive, or masculine half of the symbol not only chases the tail of the negative and feminine, but also contains the very essence, or seed of that Principle within itself. Now consider, the exact inverse is also true, such that neither Principle can be said to be "pure" or exclusive of the other. They do indeed maintain a distinct identity, yet they are connected *both* by their relationship to each other, "chasing" each other in this wheel of balance, and also by the very balancing of feminine within masculine, masculine within feminine.
A Christian is free to argue that Eastern Wisdom does not appeal in the same way as do the Teachings in the New Testament Gospels, yet if s/he remains ignorant of these latter Teachings in their esoteric character, s/he will fail to realize that the Teachings of East and West are complementary and inclusive of each other, not exclusive and antithetical.
NO individual with a shred of insight into the words, the Wisdom, the Heart and the message of Christ Jesus ... would argue otherwise, without betraying his or her unawareness of what the East has had to offer. That's why, in modern and more enlightened times {than the Dark Ages} ... we call it `INTERFaith.'
For the sake of those interested in the transition between Christianity before Jesus of Nazareth was born, during the past two millennia since his birth, and now, as we enter a new era of understanding, Divine Hope and Expectation ... I have no problem whatsoever focusing my arguments along the lines of "what Jesus said," even while I will *always* emphasize the true significance of those words, sayings and lessons as best I understand them.
And again, that seems a whole lot more genuine and interesting, at least to me personally, then a whole bunch of Bible-beating and pointing to theological wrangling from twelve and a half centuries, or even 250, years ago!
Another thought: Tradition is Tradition because we have established it as such; I'm sorry if some have forgotten that they have an important and ongoing role in doing just that. I, for one, have not.
First of all, flip the familiar percentage, and you'll be onto some more symbolism. It isn't, and has never been, very veiled. Those with an open mind will understand the association with the following quote from "The Song of the Lord," in which the Lord tells us:
"Having permeated this entire Universe with a fragment of Myself, I remain."
And finally, consider the Eastern symbol of the Yin-Yang. Remember that the positive, or masculine half of the symbol not only chases the tail of the negative and feminine, but also contains the very essence, or seed of that Principle within itself. Now consider, the exact inverse is also true, such that neither Principle can be said to be "pure" or exclusive of the other. They do indeed maintain a distinct identity, yet they are connected *both* by their relationship to each other, "chasing" each other in this wheel of balance, and also by the very balancing of feminine within masculine, masculine within feminine.
A Christian is free to argue that Eastern Wisdom does not appeal in the same way as do the Teachings in the New Testament Gospels, yet if s/he remains ignorant of these latter Teachings in their esoteric character, s/he will fail to realize that the Teachings of East and West are complementary and inclusive of each other, not exclusive and antithetical.
NO individual with a shred of insight into the words, the Wisdom, the Heart and the message of Christ Jesus ... would argue otherwise, without betraying his or her unawareness of what the East has had to offer. That's why, in modern and more enlightened times {than the Dark Ages} ... we call it `INTERFaith.'
For the sake of those interested in the transition between Christianity before Jesus of Nazareth was born, during the past two millennia since his birth, and now, as we enter a new era of understanding, Divine Hope and Expectation ... I have no problem whatsoever focusing my arguments along the lines of "what Jesus said," even while I will *always* emphasize the true significance of those words, sayings and lessons as best I understand them.
And again, that seems a whole lot more genuine and interesting, at least to me personally, then a whole bunch of Bible-beating and pointing to theological wrangling from twelve and a half centuries, or even 250, years ago!
Another thought: Tradition is Tradition because we have established it as such; I'm sorry if some have forgotten that they have an important and ongoing role in doing just that. I, for one, have not.
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Noted. And will you be modeling cordiality for us from here on out?
I have now done this. Is there any part which you do not yet understand, or which remains unclear?Thomas said:
We are not, as are some Orders of Beings, self-existent. Yet, our very existence ~ both for this reason and others (ask someone who appreciates Beauty, or consider it anew for yourself) ~ is indeed that very proof of our Divinity (for it proves the existence of God) of which you speak. One either understands this, or doesn't; no appeal to ordinary logic will show why I have proven you wrong. However, another member here at CR, should he or she so desire, may speak up and put my argument into other words. Then, I think you may find it easier to understand and agree; and if that's what it takes, so be it.Thomas said:
I said,
To which you replied,
Theoretically, yes, but I take it your faith today is *lacking* in comparison to that grain of mustard seed. One day, perhaps things will change. Thomas, you leave yourself too open, and I am quoting YOUR LORD, YOUR BIBLE. Nor out of context, nor without direct and appropriate application. I am the one who argues that our transformation is a gradual one, remember, taking even several incarnations. Nor do I assert anything here that is not supported by Christian Scripture and the Teaching of the Lord. Your own interpretation is your own choice; but let us pass over this technicality for the moment. In other words, I will concede on this matter.Thomas said:
Now now, Mr. Goose, if sarcasm is too good for me, it's got to be too good for you. Can't have it both ways ...Thomas said:
These points can be summed up thus: It is a matter of perspective. A time will come when, even in common knowledge and exoteric religion, man will be understood rightly with regard to his place within the universe. He will be known as a God-in-miniature, and then it will become clear that God is precisely a Man-in-Grandeur. Christ, as occupying a position in the middle, will be understood primarily as a bridging Principle rather than as a man with historical limitations ... and this will show to the popular eye what ALL MEN can hope to attain, while Christ will once again be relegated to an accurate scale on the Grand Order of Being.Thomas said:
And where will Churchianity be by then? Dead and gone. But here I speak of a somewhat distant future, and I have never said that religion will disappear altogether, or that Christianity would cease to exist anytime soon. Indeed, the religion of the future, I would hope, shall evolve into that true and right Christianity which Christ intended.
I said,
To which you replied,
But here you've really done nothing besides take a free jab, since God Transcendent does reveal something to us about that, or those Aspects of Deity, for if Christ, coming to remind us of God IMMANENT was not sent from God Transcendent, then your entire theology falls apart, and your tautologies ... ah, well they're a bit like shiny baubles.Thomas said:
SO, whatever the Absolute may or may not be required to reveal ... I dare say you're in any position to know or tell us, any more than I am. See there? Seems pretty darn silly now that you look at it, doesn't it.
What I'm affirming is that IF there's any relationship at all between God Transcendent and God Immanent, then any person with a wee bit of Insight, especially if provided or assisted by that thing you call the Holy Spirit (that *other* Aspect of God) ... such person should be able to make certain correlations which, even if but working hypotheses at first, are every bit as capable of confirmation in theory (yes, also *as* theory) as any other set of hypotheses. But you know, do enough tests, and theory becomes fact. Or, to be more precise, if we can demonstrate it again and again, a theory begins to gain scientific credibility ... and sometimes the person we most need to prove things to is ourself!
Am I a "man of science?" Oh, well ... one of its {the Scientific Method's} Champions, yes, I would at least say that!
I said,
To which you replied,
Nope, I spoke not one whit about God being dependent on me. This was your assumption, and thus, your error.Thomas said:
What I said is simply what I have spent more than enough time now attempting to demonstrate: That Man exists within God exists within Man exists within ... oh yes, and sometimes that's called a Möbius strip, inasmuch as a simple, 3-dimensional illustration may represent such a sublime concept.
As for `The Absolute,' which is so easy to invoke yet impossible to define, confine or even remotely grasp ... now THAT, the "One About Whom Nought May Be Said," remains outside of (or Transcendent of) the Möbius strip, all conceptions thereof, and all those doing the conceiving. It's nice to be able to try to "package" all of this into our tiny little, cramped and crusty human minds ... but a little bird told me it wasn't about putting God IN the box, it's actually more about letting God out!
This, I trust, has now been rectified. If it hasn't, then you simply aren't listening. The reason you won't hear what you want to hear, Thomas, is that you don't want to hear that Humanity contains the Spark of Divinity. It's really THAT PLAIN AND SIMPLE.Thomas said:
You are the horse, in this case. There is a man with a pitcher of water, but guess what: I don't need to go see the one who has the horse. For what he resists, you see, is his own, true Soul Nature. Nor did I claim to be any different, inherently, or even in degree of attainment, or spiritual progression, etc. I simply assert, as do the Heavens, the Scriptures, the Lord of Lords and the humble Followers thereof, that if Christ says, "Water of Life I am, poured out for thirsty men," then sooner or later, if we wish to know our Lord ~ and be able to understand what Jesus meant in the subject of this thread ~ then surely enough, the horse must drink.
Meanwhile, feel free to go thirsty if you so prefer.
I did not say such a thing, I have never implied such a thing, and I think it simply bothers you that I have let a little portion of my "God within" out of that box in which *you keep Him*. Careful though, I'll be the first to remind you ~ and acknowledge ~ there are other lessons from history, and mythology, about boxes ... and if you go chasing rabbits ...Thomas said:
The moral there is, don't rush in where Angels fear to tread. I don't mind referencing Pandora, because we're grown-ups here ... even if some prefer to remain "babes in Christ" from now to all Eternity.
You forgot the myth of Prometheus altogether, my friend. Prometheus reached Heavenward, and dared to steal the FIRE of the Gods (that's plural, just as a note, but I realize that the notion of the Planetaries doesn't sit well with you, despite it being BIBLICAL and Universal), because Humanity up until that point was without the GIFT of Reason. We had quite a few of our OTHER Principles ... some of them Divine, some of them earthly, yet a man formed of the dust must have the Breath of Life breathed into his nostrils, and ere he may learn to THINK, and emulate the Gods above, his unstirring mind must be QUICKENED.Thomas said:
Thus did Prometheus steal the Fire, thus did the Lightbearers bring the GIFT of Mind, that we might learn to aspire Heavenward in thought, and speech, and action. No one said, not God nor the Prophets, that we would find it an easy Journey, or one without misery and woe along the way. We labour, as did Hercules, amidst the pair of opposites, and until we can find the Way that lies between the two great lines of force, until then we shall not be able to enter in, and find the SELF, and enter into PEACE.
There is your Nirvana, and so have a dozen, no a dozen dozens of Nirvanis remained ~ sacrificing all due reward ~ only to assist a needy Humanity along that Way.
Now speak to me of Grace, of Heavenly Gifts, yet deny the same simply because you do not recognize it, recognize THEM, in the myriad MULTIPLICITY (that DIVERSITY thing again) of Their other, LEAST manifest FORMS.
I am humbled, Thomas, but not by your towering intellect, nor by your thorough knowledge of Catholic doctrine or mastery of its exoteric formalities. What humbles me is the DEVOTION to the Christ, shown by many ~ perhaps most ~ of the participants on these forums (including yourself!) ... even while some express it quite differently than others, and even while some may never use the names, "Jesus," nor "Christ," nor speak of Christianity.
For Christ is known by His Followers everywhere, and this was as true 4,000 years ago as it was 2,000, in many respects ... and so it will be long after the incarnation 2,000 years ago is forgotten ~ for this, and more, may occur before we have reached the Golden Age.
I wonder ... what would you do if Christ spoke to you in plain and simple English, and said to you that all Responsibility shall be placed upon your shoulders, in time, and that the only way this can become possible is through your willing submission.
Would you consider that a great honor, and bow down, and Receive His GIFT?
Or would you argue for your unworthiness, for your unreadiness, or for the unreasonableness of it all?
What if I told you that the scenario is not hypothetical, and that I really don't care what you say in response ... to me.
God Bless (Namaskar),
~A/taijasi
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
gosh, andrew, i have so missed your.... unique STYLE.
b'shalom
bananabrain
b'shalom
bananabrain
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
And I've missed your wry wit, your delightful sarcasm ... and ...
... no, I think that's it.
The moral of the story is, since you didn't have jack squat to add, why did you bother ~ not trying?
Says a whole more to me about who you are, what kind of person you are, than if you *had* bothered. I mean, surely you could have come up with *something* substantial to add to the dialogue, couldn't you have?
Guess not.
But then, thank you bananabrain, for that ongoing revelation ... and maybe one of these days we'll get it *just right* ~ so that, you too, will find what you're looking for.
Eh mack?
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Besides not appealing to Bananabrain, for my formatting choices, about which I give NOT ONE WHIT (go fish, mate, you just might catch something, eh? you know, thinking of a certain motif here, eh? nudge-nudge, umm, you all around to this one YET? eh?) ...
... besides all that ...
... it occurred that since my posts are rather lengthy, and dwell upon one point for the most part, I might be able to sum them up a bit more succinctly. I can think of no better way to do so than by sharing something that sometimes forms a part of my `signature file' in emails:
--
"All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
Whose body Nature is, and God the soul."
~ Alexander Pope
God exists within Nature; Nature reveals something of God. Nature does not express the *totality* of Godhood, or of Godhead, yet you cannot have Nature without also having GOD. If you fail to see that, or happen to fail to recognize your own Savior (that's the umm, World Savior, for those of you who miss things because of their formatting style ~ or for whatever other reason ~ AGE after AGE after AGE) ... it doesn't mean He, or the explanation, won't come around again ~ on the guitar. Just try to pay attention this time, eh?
For a better understanding, I will quote the church signs I have seen so often. After the line reading, "Sign broken," there is a line which says:
ENQUIRE WITHIN
Can't make it out for its formatting yet, bananabrain? No sweat. Perhaps the same idea appeals to you in *another way* ... or perhaps it's already been delivered in such fashion that you *already understand*. I hope so.
For the rest of the folks, who sure as hell make out as if they really never got the message ... ah well, it has nothing to do with NEEDING A CHURCH to find your Lord, even if that's what the clever hint in the sign was all about.
No, I think it has more to do with Christ never being farther away than your own elbow, although, that too, should not be taken literally; it should be a HINT ... and the rest, I'm afraid, is UP TO YOU.
For God made things like that, and gifted us, quite on Purpose, with FREE WILL (as Thomas has pointed out). And such Gift, in this case, is why *Christ can NEVER do for you* (or any race, or any Jew), what that person, or group, or creed, or man-in-the-pew ... WILL NOT choose to DO, of his own FREE VOLITION.
Damn folks are thick-headed sometimes. THICK-HEADED, THICK-NECKED, PROUD and ARROGANT. I should know, because I ARE ONE ... and with that, I'll leave you to stew for awhile. Enjoy it, and when you feel you have something useful to add (bananabrain, et al) ... do pay us all a visit and keep the ball rolling.
~said the stone, off to gather *no moss*,
Namaskar
... besides all that ...
... it occurred that since my posts are rather lengthy, and dwell upon one point for the most part, I might be able to sum them up a bit more succinctly. I can think of no better way to do so than by sharing something that sometimes forms a part of my `signature file' in emails:
--
"All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
Whose body Nature is, and God the soul."
~ Alexander Pope
God exists within Nature; Nature reveals something of God. Nature does not express the *totality* of Godhood, or of Godhead, yet you cannot have Nature without also having GOD. If you fail to see that, or happen to fail to recognize your own Savior (that's the umm, World Savior, for those of you who miss things because of their formatting style ~ or for whatever other reason ~ AGE after AGE after AGE) ... it doesn't mean He, or the explanation, won't come around again ~ on the guitar. Just try to pay attention this time, eh?
For a better understanding, I will quote the church signs I have seen so often. After the line reading, "Sign broken," there is a line which says:
ENQUIRE WITHIN
Can't make it out for its formatting yet, bananabrain? No sweat. Perhaps the same idea appeals to you in *another way* ... or perhaps it's already been delivered in such fashion that you *already understand*. I hope so.
For the rest of the folks, who sure as hell make out as if they really never got the message ... ah well, it has nothing to do with NEEDING A CHURCH to find your Lord, even if that's what the clever hint in the sign was all about.
No, I think it has more to do with Christ never being farther away than your own elbow, although, that too, should not be taken literally; it should be a HINT ... and the rest, I'm afraid, is UP TO YOU.
For God made things like that, and gifted us, quite on Purpose, with FREE WILL (as Thomas has pointed out). And such Gift, in this case, is why *Christ can NEVER do for you* (or any race, or any Jew), what that person, or group, or creed, or man-in-the-pew ... WILL NOT choose to DO, of his own FREE VOLITION.
Damn folks are thick-headed sometimes. THICK-HEADED, THICK-NECKED, PROUD and ARROGANT. I should know, because I ARE ONE ... and with that, I'll leave you to stew for awhile. Enjoy it, and when you feel you have something useful to add (bananabrain, et al) ... do pay us all a visit and keep the ball rolling.
~said the stone, off to gather *no moss*,
Namaskar