God loves me.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

I'm sure there are many passages in the Bible as well regarding the inscrutable, ineffable nature of the mystery of the eternal Godhead,

Having read and being familiar with the Bible I will say yes you're correct there is. Mere words. Just because they are said doesn't negate how absolutely contrary other pages are to the 'infinite and incomprehensible'. Taoist doctrine does a much better job at speaking about that nature without offending the idea.

As I said before, to believe an infinite all-loving all-powerful being is represented in these pages is absurd and offensive. Not to me! But to God! Not only does the Bible claim very encompassing thoughts and wishes an infinite and incomprehensible god has, but many are barbaric and savage and even malevolent. These Holy Words are simply not reconcilable with the religious predicates typically attributed to 'God'. Omnipresent, Omnibenevolent, Omnipotent, Omniscient. The Bible contradicts all of these throughout. Religious people have to create convoluted explanations on its behalf to explain it. Is it not telling when each Christian has their own unique explanations?? Because each person is using reasoning external to the Bible to justify it in any way they personally can.

You can't put infinity in a box. The incomprehensible is just that; incomprehensible.

A being which is the very source of love and compassion would not command men to marry their rape victims, condone slavery, commit genocide, murder innocent children...

Again, I'm not against 'God' or love. Not against your belief in 'God' or love. However, believing the wickedness in the Bible is representative of 'God's' divine love is in my eyes a great injustice to both 'God' and love. The only way someone who is religious would not agree with me on that is if they either have not actually read the Bible or they have a wholly different moral compass than I.

Or as Mr. Blake said. 'Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.'

I doubt either of us read it every day. Don't take that from it. Just the idea that we could interpret very different things from the same words. I cannot explain how you're 'okay' with the many moral atrocities in the Bible other than that. I am sorry for my opposition to you in this thread. I wish you could appreciate why. It's actually because I believe in love that I am in opposition.

Cheers, mate. Wanted to let know I read your reply, so you don't think I presumed upon your time. Thanks again for the thread and to you, the author, I give the last word. But I'm sure we will meet again. Cheers, again.

Daniel

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Too bad all the Jesus stuff isn't in a separate book then eh? That seems to be the problem that we're having.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
As I said before, to believe an infinite all-loving all-powerful being is represented in these pages is absurd and offensive. Not to me! But to God!

See now that's funny!

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Oh I think it's funny too!

The title of this thread, "God loves me" proved irresistible! Kudos on the catchy title!

Why do we tend to think that God loves individuals? God is Love, and we apparent individuals are self-contracted egocentric crazy people making God into some Great Other that will take care of us, that will fix our problems, answer our prayers, grant us health, etc., etc. - all the while we are screwing up the world with our consumer madness. (Of course, I am speaking here of mankind en masse and our effects on the world; and regardless of whether one believes in God or not, we tend to all buy into our existence as separate egos.)

The "me" or ego-I is the very definition of unlove or Narcissus - contracted upon oneself, staring into the pond of mind at one's own reflection, waiting to be loved, but fundamentally feeling betrayed and abandoned. Can such a one have the capacity to love and to be love-able?

Some of us were told that we were created in God's Image, but this is more about the capacity we are given to transcend this false "me" presumption, to look up from our self-glorifying reflection in the pond - to ultimately be drowned in the Love of Reality Itself.

So God not only cannot love any "me" but doesn't even acknowledge such a one exists! Why? Because the "me" is an utter illusion, a separative activity of the body-mind, not an actual entity that exists or could be loved. Have you actually ever seen a "me"? Only when transcending this notion of "me" do we love and do we recognize the Love of God.

Anyway, thank you for the interesting consideration!

reply to post by bb23108

I disagree, and this is where the logos or logic of Jesus seems to depart from that of Buddhism/Toaism, whereby love to BE love is between a beloved and beloved other, or there's no love at all.

Therefore the love of God celebrates the unique individual personhood of each and every person, individually, and then it may be called real love.

"...love them as you loved me from before the foundation of the world."

Absolute oneness, to the exclusion of the self, amounts to nihilism and it leads to the death of the soul.

"What does it profit a man (person) to gain the WHOLE world, but lose his own soul?!" (unique personhood, character, charm, and passion).

Zeroing out the self is not an accomplishment it matters not how long someone might have had to sit and meditate, to achieve. (that's funny too!)

Best regards, and with love,

Robert aka NAM

reply to post by NewAgeMan
Given Jesus is attributed with saying "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" - and given he used the word "all" - I can only feel that he was teaching that such Love is the case in Divine Communion in which nothing is held back. "All" means everything - utterly surrendered to the Divine. In such Communion, the process that is the ego-I is undone. How else could such Love even be possible?

In such a Graceful Blessing, the ego-I is shown to be the moment to moment unnecessary gesture of separation away from God, and no longer animated in any such love-embrace with the Divine. As soon as the ego-I is re-animated, that Communion is gone! What is so love-blissful is to actually let go of all the separation, fear, contraction, unlove and to recognize Reality Itself.

And Jesus is also said to have confessed "I and my Father are one". This statement seems self-explanatory.

Jesus instructed that one should "Love your neighbor as yourself". This is only possible if we realize that we are all already one in Reality. Jesus did not say "Love your neighbor as you love yourself", but to love your neighbor AS yourself - because we are not separate!

Even in human love, when one is truly in love with another person, there is no longer a sense of separate self in those moments of fullest feeling. Boundaries are gone, there is simply the love-bliss of our inherent oneness..

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Zeroing out the self is not an accomplishment it matters not how long someone might have had to sit and meditate, to achieve. (that's funny too!)

It's not a matter of sitting in meditation to zero out the self. It is a recognition that the ego-I is a sham - simply an ongoing activity that is presumed to be a separate self. It is just an activity not an actual entity and this can be noticed. Dwelling on that endless droning process of thinking and separating actually impedes real growth and right life. Look at the mess in the world - this egoic mode of separative existence is not working out so well!

reply to post by bb23108

Well said!

I (so to speak) agree with you (so to speak).

I just can't go along with the people who say that I am them and they are me, because there IS a unique personal spiritual experience for each person, and God does appear to seek and enjoy unity in variety.

One can take the no-I too far in the same way that egoic activity isn't the real and authentic self when too much emphasis is placed on the me.

Love seems to be the very reason for creation that we might enjoy a shared mutual experience between two or more.. no?

I suppose what I like to call the humor of true understanding is that of the true and authentic self towards the inauthentic I-self me me me who or which is absurd in part because it's an it and not a true self to begin with, just a conglomerate of things and impressions and opinions.

I do see what you're saying, and it does make me laugh or should I say makes God laugh through me..

Now I know why the title of the thread seemed so absurd and ridiculous to me.

All there is is God's love and I certainly don't have a monopoly on it..

Love,

NAM

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
I just can't go along with the people who say that I am them and they are me, because there IS a unique personal spiritual experience for each person, and God does appear to seek and enjoy unity in variety.

Yeah, there is far too much "twinkyness" when it comes to such confessions of a sense of oneness. Clearly, there are all the differences between everyone that make it necessary for us to distinguish between one another. A better reference for the "I" is actually the whole body-mind (altogether in terms of gross, subtle, and causal bodies), not this internal egoic process caused by individuated attention feeling separate over against objects, others, etc.

"I" as the whole body-mind certainly has its own unique characteristics, experiences, feelings, etc. So, yes, in that sense we are all unique. But the Reality all of these body-minds arise in, is indivisible prior unity. So from the "point of view" of indivisible Reality, there is no separation. In Reality we discover real love, intelligence, freedom beyond death. We do not find this in any of the arising objects, including the body-mind. Why would we want to look in the body-mind for such love - we know the body-mind is going to die anyway, regardless of what form or dimension it appears in, because all forms change and disappear.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Love seems to be the very reason for creation that we might enjoy a shared mutual experience between two or more.. no?

It's a humorous thought and can certainly be the case that we enjoy shared experiences of love. But if that was the Grand Plan in creating this place, I would think it could have been a whole lot more refined! Like what is with all the terrible deaths, starvation, horrendous suffering by so many, the sheer amount of work and energy it takes to survive here - and only to die anyway? Everyone we ever love is going to die! What kind of love-based Creation Plan is that? (This particular topic relative to a Grand Plan would warrant a whole new thread, and probably has already been discussed elsewhere.)

No, I cannot agree that Love is the reason for this creation as you are mentioning. However, Love is the means for transcending this and all realms. When such Love is recognized, then we can find some real humor between us in places like this because we are no longer simply bound to the place in and of itself. But even so, such Love feels even more the great sorrow that places such as this evoke - so much suffering and unnecessary seeking.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
I do see what you're saying, and it does make me laugh or should I say makes God laugh through me..

lol. What can I say?

reply to post by bb23108

I just think it's better that there's something and not nothing at all, and while it's hazardous to a degree, even a large degree, overall the universe seems friendly (or we would not be here to begin with).

Interesting that the old adage to love God with all we've got and neighbor as self is the gateway to eternal life which you call the Reality.

That's a present moment realization of a timeless, spaceless and deathless state of being, at the subtle body level. Therefore it's best to die to self (inauthentic self aka ego) and get it over with while still alive, so that we can enjoy the Reality within the manifest creation. This is our destiny, which I think of as a Christian mystic as a great Wedding Day celebration wherein there is much humor, shared experience and joyful celebration. However, as you've pointed out there's still much work to do to eliminate suffering before we can thoroughly enjoy that domain or realm.

I think there's a paradox here in regards both to the nature of the self in relation to other, and to the acceptance of suffering as part of life, necessary suffering that is, as opposed to needless suffering.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
I just think it's better that there's something and not nothing at all, and while it's hazardous to a degree, even a large degree, overall the universe seems friendly (or we would not be here to begin with).

Okay, but we still suffer and die, and all our loved ones do too. So I am not really sold on how "friendly" all of that is. But this place is at least a good reminder of the body-mind's mortality and the need for real self-transcendence otherwise this gross life pattern of birthing and dying will just keep repeating itself.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Interesting that the old adage to love God with all we've got and neighbor as self is the gateway to eternal life which you call the Reality.

Sure, because Indivisible prior unity, Love, God, Reality, is the foundation of all religions and all spiritual traditions, and though they have their various approaches to recognizing the Divine, self-transcendence or Love is their essence.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
That's a present moment realization of a timeless, spaceless and deathless state of being, at the subtle body level. Therefore it's best to die to self (inauthentic self aka ego) and get it over with while still alive, so that we can enjoy the Reality within the manifest creation. This is our destiny, which I think of as a Christian mystic as a great Wedding Day celebration wherein there is much humor, shared experience and joyful celebration. However, as you've pointed out there's still much work to do to eliminate suffering before we can thoroughly enjoy that domain or realm.

It is clear in so many Biblical references that Jesus was teaching his disciples this principle of ascent into the God-Light above the gross body-mind, via the breath of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, the esoteric aspects of Christianity mainly went underground after Jesus' crucifixion because the Roman State only wanted the exoteric (external ceremonial) religious aspects of Christianity to be "officialized". Ecstatic mystics did not have much usefulness for the State, and were a bad example to others! Very little work would get done if everyone went ecstatic in the Divine - not to mention their rightful babbling about the stupidity of various politicians! Again, this could be a whole other thread, so I will stop here with this part.

reply to post by bb23108

Ah but the ecstatic humor of Christ-realization is and will always get the last laugh, even at the expense of the devil within (egoic attachments), if only the carnal manifestations of "the flesh" as a causal mechanism were not so tragic. (ah there's still humor there however grave the sinful nature by comparison).

Imho, it's working it's way through "the system" (of evil where evil is largely of a systemic nature according to a permissive framework i.e.: a conspiracy of evil) even today as we speak by what I call a double bind on the ego-self, which like Chinese handcuffs only tighten the greater the struggle against the spirit, so there again, the ecstatic humor of the Lord prevails, hurrah!

Best however to get the joke while it's still on it's way, lest it come too late in the form of a "groaner".. (something I would not wish upon my worst enemy - could you imagine how terrible that would be?)

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I have a question for you, and every Christian on this thread:

My problem, however, can be loosely explained as this: Jesus, in the Bible, has always been portrayed as an advocate of conditional love. There are certain things you might do, things which occurred as a result of opportunity presented by the very entity who determined that you would be tempted, that will result in damnation.

I have seen love before. I have seen women continuously flutter back to a man who has abused them, and I have see men continuously fall for women who have used them. And yet they will never ever condemn the object of their love, because love will never ever judge them for being who they are. They understand where those cruel behaviors come from, even though they are not omniscient. They can withstand such treatment, even though they are not omnipotent. So how can a god who created imperfection not withstand the presence of it? Why does a god who invented evil condemn the existence of it? Why does a god judge its creations for the design he himself devised?

Who is more guilty? The puppet or the mastermind? Conceivably, such a being cannot be trusted because it would be so easy to force an essentially peaceful person to commit an atrocity, then replace their memories with all the images and thoughts of someone who would have willingly done that deed. That's just one example of how such a being might be dangerous.

Let's take it a step further. I think we have established that "God" and Jesus experienced human emotions. Joy, wrath, jealousy, grief...is it too farfetched to think that "God" might reach down and control events to suit his own agenda? Is it too farfetched to think that at any given time, "God" might violate the gift of free will with impunity? How are we to say otherwise?

That is why no one entity should have all the power. It is too easy for that entity, especially one known to be prey to human emotions, to decide that the salvation of mankind falls to it and it alone, and to decide that the many must sacrifice their rights for the preservation of everything that entity deems to be good and holy. Especially when it becomes obsessed with the idea of protection. How far to go? What lines to draw? What boundaries to cross? What codes to make or break? Protection is a very fickle duty, and only much more so when absolute power is involved.

If you doubt my words, watch I Robot starring Will Smith. That is a perfect example of how a system intended to protect can easily become a system intent upon oppression. Where does love end and tyranny begin? Can you answer me that? Can you explain a clearly defined line between love and tyranny? One that we can all agree with?

This is a response I posted on another thread, but it's just as well suited here.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

"I have only one commandment. Love one another as I have loved you."

"They will know you by your love for one another."

How the "church" then twisted that, isn't Jesus' responsibility.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

"I have only one commandment. Love one another as I have loved you."

"They will know you by your love for one another."

How the "church" then twisted that, isn't Jesus' responsibility.

That's not what I asked you. I'm not asking you to answer for mankind, I am asking you to answer for a god that apparently you don't understand. If you can't show me where love and tyranny are divided, then how can you trust "God" with your soul?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Love to be love must be free. The only condition of of the unconditioned ground of all being and becoming (holy of holies) is that it's unconditional.

It's a tyranny of freedom, the freedom to freely love as we are loved.

Try reading the NT again but with an open mind and recognizing that some of it might have been messed with, so some digging might be required.

Let go of your bias, and anti-Christian hatred, and look again with an open mind.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

It's a tyranny of freedom, the freedom to freely love as we are loved.

Can you explain that more clearly? I asked you to draw a clear line between love and tyranny, so I can understand how "God" represents love and not a tyranny. My reasons for asking this have already been explained in the post where I originally asked the question.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Feel free to click the link if you need to review the context of my question. That goes for anyone observing the discussion, as well.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

It's a tyranny of love because God is love and God is one.

The mythical story of the rebellion and of the one who rebelled (wanted to rise up on the throne) isn't one to be admired, because to rebel against the God of love is to become hate filled and self-willed.