God loves me.

First of all, this:

An omniscient and omnipotent God who does not even take care that His intentions shall be understood by His creatures—could He be a God of goodness? A God, who, for thousands of years, has permitted innumerable doubts and scruples to continue unchecked as if they were of no importance in the salvation of mankind, and who, nevertheless, announces the most dreadful consequences for any one who mistakes his truth? Would he not be a cruel god if, being himself in possession of the truth, he could calmly contemplate mankind, in a state of miserable torment, worrying its mind as to what was truth?

Nietzsche, Dawn of the Day

Second of all, this:

What attitude do we assume towards the acts of our neighbour?—In the first place, we consider how they may benefit ourselves—we see them only in this light. It is this effect which we regard as the intention of the acts,—and in the end we come to look upon these intentions of our neighbour as permanent qualities in him, and we call him, for example, “a dangerous man.” Triple error! Triple and most ancient mistake! Perhaps this inheritance comes to us from the animals and their faculty of judgment! Must not the origin of all morality be sought in these detestable narrow-minded conclusions: “Whatever injures me is evil (something injurious in itself), whatever benefits me is good (beneficial and profitable in itself), whatever injures me once or several times is hostile per se; whatever benefits me once or several times is friendly per se.” O pudenda origo! Is not this equivalent to interpreting the contemptible, occasional, and often merely accidental relations of another person to us as his primary and most essential qualities, and affirming that towards himself and every one else he is only capable of such actions as we ourselves have experienced at his hands once or several times! And is not this thorough folly based upon the most immodest of all mental reservations: namely, that we ourselves must be the standard of what is good, since we determine good and evil?

Nietzsche, Dawn of the Day


Thank your for your post

reply to post by Philodemus


Some wonderful insights. Thank you.

..God loves U! good for U! cos he forget about me and i am sure i am not alone... Your GOD is not cool for everyone.... peace

reply to post by Philodemus

First, God has declared his intention and truth already, not only through the grace (love in thought, word, deed and action) of the person of Jesus, but in the Majesty of the creation with the human being situated as it were atop a mountain of cosmic evolution.

Generally speaking our common demonimator, and our first apriori presupposition is to negate the human being by relegating him to a mere thing, at best, and at worst completely ignoring his own experience altogether (when modern physics itself reveals that our own experience and freedom in closing the loop is absolutely intrinsic to the first/last cause), and then, from that very very low estimation of himself and his neighbor (as Nietzsche does effectively convey in the "second") to add further insult of unnecessary injury, he then proceeds to both separate himself from, and then reduce also to the lowest possible denominator the world of "thingness" without, calling it dead, worthless, and meaningless, and then he proclaims that "God is dead".

But in the second, he describes another means of the source of pathetic judgements about one's fellow man, and the split nature of the judgement of good and evil from that lowest of viewpoints and contexts.

How sad! How grave a predicament, but to first blame God for not revealing his truth and wisdom and love, before flinging himself into this abyss of increasingly valueless sentiments and absurdities - is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.

The second, properly understood and recognized, if it does not cause you to laugh or if you cannot see the humor in it's final conclusion, then like Nietzsche, scratching at it's surface but never seeing one's own hintergendanken (ulterior motive to blame God for either existing, or, not existing), you will lose your sense of humor and good-natured charm and enthusiasm (become nihilistic like Nietzsche himself), instead of seeing the absurdity of the joke of the fundamental premise and assumption (valueless) and then in the humor of true understanding, laughing out loud at the expense of our own prior ignorance and strong delusion (unaware of the absolute magnificence of all being including and especially our own, included, intentionally included from the very get go).

What a contrast! So I'm grateful to Nietzche for setting up the basis for the joke and the punchline and the surprise when the blindfold is removed and the world as it is comes into view with we ourselves at the heart of it all as we were when we were little children, when it was a wonder and a marvel you could feel deep down in your innermost heart of hearts and in your gut.

So the one who is Liberated in God is the inner child we (our inauthentic self) had mistakenly locked up and held as ransom to the lowest bidder.

“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
~ Mathew 19:4

From the thread Our greatest fears of what is out there?

Originally posted by Char-Lee

longing for redemption

reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

That is the key. Man wanted to be ruled by his own kind, he got his wish and was proved horribly wrong in that wish.
Now we long to be ruled by someone who is outside greed and monitory motive and favoritism and cruelty. There are no humans like that. We beg for the return.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Char-Lee

 

We are the return, and that's what scares us the most, our own true self as child of God (creative infinite intelligence responsible for our "predicament"), but the one who's scared, who's afraid is only the one who made the terrible mistake and locked up his own inner child for ransom to the lowest bidder (pathetic egoic attachements ie: inauthentic self and all compensating insecurities). So you see it IS a joke shared with God at the expense of everything that was absurd, including our own worst fears of dualistic projection, to avoid at any and all cost a recognition and realization of our true condition, and there's only one condition and only one God.

Duality, which was allowed to creep in distorted our whole POV and outlook, but it all comes back around full circle for a return, and so we eventually break apart and are are reborn to God, and to our most authentic self, who's "scary" only in the sense that it's the living God as the spirit of the universe (and spirit of love), in a domain of unconstrained and unfettered freedom to freely explore the real reality on the other side of all our fears and deflections and projections.

“God has given you a spirit with wings on which to soar into the spacious firmament of Love and Freedom. Is it not pitiful than that you cut your own wings with your own hands and suffer your soul to crawl like an insect upon the earth?”

~ Kahlil Gibran, from "The Prophet"

We were insane.

That's our greatest fear. It's not in outer space, but innerspace, no longer evolution but involution unto the point of a collective universal epiphany, at the expense of everything that was utterly absurd and ridiculous, by comparison (who we were or used to be).

So the joke is that there was never anything to fear to begin with! nor could there be from the POV of our already always state of mind and being, which by it's very nature cannot and never was an imposition up the mind of man!

And if that doesn't make you laugh and cry and then cry and laugh some more, at the joke of the ages capable of saving our souls and by extension the world at large, then I don't know what will.

And it (the joke) can be told in a whole host of ways and "gotten" based on an infinitude of unique personal spiritual experiences, because each person is screwed up in their own unique personal way, thus the "double bind" when it unravels will evoke a type of laughter and "punch line" utterly unique to each person..

We can't NOT get it, in the final analysis, especially given all the contrast according to the prior duality of a an utterly false perception of ourselves and the world and whole cosmos that we inhabit as a non-local holographic universe where by virtue of it's non-local holographic nature - LOCAL MATTERS!


It's incredibly sad, grave and utterly hilarious, this joke. It really does raise the roof, and then some, changes everything.

It (comprehending it) makes you look at everything in a whole new light. It does me.

The "second coming" is always coming because God is always he who was, who is and who is to come and when he comes he comes quickly, to save us from the loss of our own sense of humor and fearless charm.

The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

~ Revelation of John, 22:17

I am the bride of Christ (however um cough imperfect a wife), and this is a free and non-coercive invitation of all ages, the thing you were born to receive and the free gift of eternal life which was delivered to you from the very origin of all creation and therefore from the time before time.

Christ is the door itself, and I am the doorman.

C'mon in and join in the celebration of the ages and a universal party table set and prepared for none other than you yourself, after you enter the room blindfolded, and then to the surprise that it was you everyone was waiting for, all along!

C'mon in and have a drink. On tonights menu we wil be serving lamb and a whole host of delights for your spiritual sustenance and everlasting satisfaction.

opens door __/

(that's doorman-style glasses and goatee).

also relevant and a must read

Reality Sandwich
Eco-Doom or Redemption: The Mad Movement and the Sixties' Counter-Culture Project

reply to post by NewAgeMan

First, God has declared his intention and truth already

Not to me or you. You mean to someone a long time ago, and then it was put in a book.

Generally speaking our common demonimator, and our first apriori presupposition is to negate the human being by relegating him to a mere thing, at best, and at worst completely ignoring his own experience altogether (when modern physics itself reveals that our own experience and freedom in closing the loop is absolutely intrinsic to the first/last cause),

That wouldn't give any reason to believe alpha omega is some biblical god or that the dogma is divine.

How sad! How grave a predicament, but to first blame God for not revealing his truth and wisdom and love, before flinging himself into this abyss of increasingly valueless sentiments and absurdities - is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.

The most ridiculous thing I have heard of is the idea an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god would have requirements of people in order to live forever, and then not reveal it to countless people over the ages even though he was fully able to do so.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Philodemus

 

First, God has declared his intention and truth already, not only through the grace (love in thought, word, deed and action) of the person of Jesus, but in the Majesty of the creation with the human being situated as it were atop a mountain of cosmic evolution.

This is the sort of revelation I have refused to accept anymore. I have lost track of the infinite amount of eloquent writers and thinkers who have, repeatedly, put this to erroneous arguments quite diligently to task. May I note, that though the arguments against them have not been entirely compelling they have been at least mildly so; and to be mildly convinced on such issues as these is enough for one not to consider them so absolute as to render them ultimately important.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Philodemus

 

Generally speaking our common demonimator, and our first apriori presupposition is to negate the human being by relegating him to a mere thing, at best, and at worst completely ignoring his own experience altogether (when modern physics itself reveals that our own experience and freedom in closing the loop is absolutely intrinsic to the first/last cause), and then, from that very very low estimation of himself and his neighbor (as Nietzsche does effectively convey in the "second") to add further insult of unnecessary injury, he then proceeds to both separate himself from, and then reduce also to the lowest possible denominator the world of "thingness" without, calling it dead, worthless, and meaningless, and then he proclaims that "God is dead".

I have only just begun to read Nietzshce, I will confess, so I know that to take what he says here and there and not really dig into it, is to do his writing a great disservice. I don't know that much about the world of atheistic thinking, yet. I was raised a stout fundamental Baptist, so I know the theistic angle rather well. Having had a scholastic career worthy of a seminary education, I find it safe to say that I know that side of the coin relatively well. Well enough in fact, that none of your rebuttals found me at all surprised. It is the very same ideology that drove me mad in my twenties. Now, I'm seeking answers here on earth; here were there is the most hope of finding them.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Philodemus

 

But in the second, he describes another means of the source of pathetic judgements about one's fellow man, and the split nature of the judgement of good and evil from that lowest of viewpoints and contexts.

How sad! How grave a predicament, but to first blame God for not revealing his truth and wisdom and love, before flinging himself into this abyss of increasingly valueless sentiments and absurdities - is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.

Again, I have just begun reading Neitzshce, but taking things out of context, as with any writing, is the easiest way to make the author sound asinine. As far as I can tell, he makes a profound case towards giving at least a plausible explanation for a natural development of our sense of good and evil, rather than a supernatural one. Being a practical man, this approach is intriguing to me. I don't get the same sense of dispare from his writing that clearly you do. I find the ideas empowering, not depressing.

To your second point, I do blame God for not revealing His truth and wisdom and love. I blame Him to the end. There is much talk in religious apologetics of the complete nature of the divine revelation. The idea of it is that it is obvious and clearly; to the degree that is practically irrefutable. You speak poignantly toward Neitzsche's split nature of judgement of good and evil, but you seem immovable on your own opinion on the split nature of divine revelation. If it was so clear, if it was so obvious, if it was so irrefutably apparent, I would not be able to point to such diversity in its interpretation and to the subsequent eons of death and bloodshed, heartache and turmoil that such an idea has produced.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Philodemus

 

The second, properly understood and recognized, if it does not cause you to laugh or if you cannot see the humor in it's final conclusion, then like Nietzsche, scratching at it's surface but never seeing one's own hintergendanken (ulterior motive to blame God for either existing, or, not existing), you will lose your sense of humor and good-natured charm and enthusiasm (become nihilistic like Nietzsche himself), instead of seeing the absurdity of the joke of the fundamental premise and assumption (valueless) and then in the humor of true understanding, laughing out loud at the expense of our own prior ignorance and strong delusion (unaware of the absolute magnificence of all being including and especially our own, included, intentionally included from the very get go).

First of all, none of this is a laughing matter. And I am a little surprised that you, of all people, the one with a theology that has a nasty sting for those who do not agree, would find any room whatsoever to be in the slightest bit glib.
Secondly, if I say I blame God for His existence or non-existence, like Nietzsche, I DO jest. There is no blame for one who doesn't exist and never has. There is however the mountain of evidence that points to implicate those workers and fabricators of this ideal of God here on this earth and it is they to whom blame is laid. The whole works is covered in their fingerprints and the whole thing wreaks of the rotten flesh of man. But I will not go so far as to say it is an unavoidable truth that this world was not designed and that we, and our concepts, have evolved. I will not say it is divine revelation; I will not say it is clear, for clearly, it is not.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Philodemus

 

What a contrast! So I'm grateful to Nietzche for setting up the basis for the joke and the punchline and the surprise when the blindfold is removed and the world as it is comes into view with we ourselves at the heart of it all as we were when we were little children, when it was a wonder and a marvel you could feel deep down in your innermost heart of hearts and in your gut.

Does the solipsism of your view ever bother you? Nietzshce strives to put our existence in perspective with the universe. An existence far from important and miles from extraordinary. Your view attempts to put us not only at the centre of the existence of our planet, but also and the centre of the existence of all created things. The pride and lack of humility is astounding. You speak in sophism and your ideas are impolitic, I am sorry. If you seem to think that I can not be astounded by the quotidian, if I can not find wonder in the world as it is, without invisible movers and designers that condemn their creation for the use of reason (the very same reason gifted to them by this creator), if I can not be gobsmacked and awestruck by the fullness of nature without turning my back on the faculties that make me human, then you are sadly mistaken.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Philodemus

 

So the one who is Liberated in God is the inner child we (our inauthentic self) had mistakenly locked up and held as ransom to the lowest bidder.

“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
~ Mathew 19:4

This is the real, most obviously disturbing part of it all. The children who believe in monsters under their bed, Santa, unicorns, fairies; children who believe in the benevolence of the stranger who is waiving candy with a sinister smile; children who will take the word of any perceived authority as “gospel truth”; children with out experience, knowledge, sound judgement, prone to impulse, quarrels, and impatience; to these children (and the “children” of our race i.e. those of our ancient past) does the kingdom of heaven belong.

Great thread. Thank you again.

reply to post by Philodemus

No worries "to each his own" as they say.

I just find, myself (I can't speak for others), the opposing, reductionist argument to be rather amusing from a certain POV, although very sad at the same time, in terms of a humorlessness that resides within it's own framework, so for anyone who's locked into it, indeed it's not funny or a laughing matter at all, and of course my humor from the other viewpoint (magnificent oneness of all creation with man included by intent and thus intelligent design), might evoke only rage and hatred (..?), but there's nothing I can do about it, so I choose to laugh anyway in the hope that some day you will laugh right along with me as we marvel at the things that we used to be prepared to argue for, and against, even to the point of all manner of separation if not an enmity capable of bringing us to blows, with one man holding to the notion that we are of infinite value and the other that we are of no value whatsoever. I don't know but it seems pretty funny to me, the predicament, and the whole premise of such an argument.

I do know however which side of that argument I would rather be on, and it just so happens to be the one that allows me to retain my sense of humor, even to have the wonderful experience of having my humor restored in the light of truth or what I call the humor of true understanding in the knowledge (self knowledge) of personal experience.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Belief in something beyond material reductionism doesn't have to mean belief in the Christian Bible. Nor does belief in something beyond material reductionism give any rational credence to the Christian Bible.

It would be more fruitful giving studious thought towards bridging the gap between god-belief and bible-belief. Between the incorporeal and religious doctrine. That is, if you wish to convince non-believers like myself to accept this 'love'

All I ever hear is philosophical arguments for god and for souls and for afterlife as general metaphysical concepts. Which is totally fine, and enjoyable to read. It's non sequitur when any religious dogma is connected to those beliefs. As religious dogma itself is only ever substantiated with faith. Or, more rarely, those claiming experiential knowledge of revelation.

So what reason do you have to believe God believes in the Bible? Is it Faith, or are you in direct communion with God?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

It can be summed up as "Love God above all and (no less important) your neighbor as yourself."

It's an argument arising, as I've pointed out previously, from the unconditioned ground of all being and becoming within the context of the relativity of human being.

It begins however by examining the first cause and recognizing that love is the reason for creation so that a shared experience is made possible, and now here we find ourselves included within that process, which translates Biblically in Jesus words as "therefore, do not be afraid nor let your hearts be troubled little ones, for it pleased the father (first father of creation) to share his kingdom with all his children."

The experience that correlates with this reason and logic is one of joy.

reply to post by Philodemus


How can you blame God when you don't do what he said? Everything New Age says is true. That is the testimony of 2 witnesses. Should you not at least give what he said a thought? This is not about religion it is about truth.

This is not about my God is the best God.

This is about the truth there is only one God. Everyone who believes in something higher than this existence believes in the one God, because there is only one.

Jesus told us to do something and we would receive spiritual knowledge that would come directly from the Holy Spirit so we would know for certain the living God.

Until you are willing to do what he says how can you condemn the messge?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Let me try to explain. You keep saying God of the Bible as if there is more than one God. There is only one God and he is the source of love. The love he created is the light of this world summed up in his son Christ. In spirit we are all a part of the body of one Son, the Christ. This can be proven. Everything that happens, whether it happens as a result of or apart from religion effects everyone, weather they believe in the cause or not.

No one can escape being a part of the body of Christ, we are in this together whether we agree or not. In Christ we have the freedom to disagree about disputable matters but we must hold firm to the things that are not disputable.

What is disputable is who is Christ? What is not disputable are the words and logic that he taught. He taught the truth. Truth is found in every word he spoke and in the words of those who speak of him. If you want to find love do what he said. Even in his death he was teaching the way to the father.

You must allow yourself to die so that you may rise with the nature of Christ.

Dispute the churches and the interpretation that you have accepted all you like. But as for myself and NewAge I know we speak the truth. Because we say the same things, things that have not come from us but from him.

The knowledge that has been given to us is for you free if you simply do what he said.

reply to post by sacgamer25

And what did he say but

"Love one another as I have loved you."

It's not unreasonable, however unreasonably reasonable it may be (as a limitless love).

Everything that was made was made by the father for the son because of love (that's us too and the reason why).

Who can argue against love's reason?

Originally posted by sacgamer25
Let me try to explain. You keep saying God of the Bible as if there is more than one God. There is only one God and he is the source of love.

I keep saying 'god of the bible' to make an important distinction between god-belief and bible-belief.

I feel I was quite clear with what I meant by that distinction in my prior post, and what I would be looking for in response to it.

If you will, re-read it. If it's still not lucid, ask again.

you free if you simply do what he said.

You're free as long as you do what I tell you

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Who can argue against love's reason?

I won't argue someone's reason to love. I will argue against having to accept someone's love.

And in the case of the OP, the love of this wicked god I do not care to have.

(no more tears).

Without faith and love in a supreme being of love, with ourselves included (reintegrated), what do we have and then where are we?

Everything, the whole treasure ,was waiting for us all along, as a free gift to be received by those who dare receive it, even at the expense of selling everything else to buy up the whole field.

We have to be in search of it though, thirsting for it, passionately and then as need be "fake it until you make it", and lo and behold it's there, closer now, almost tangible as if you could reach out and touch heaven when the heart is pure and the soul in love with love itself.

It's like a promise of something in store whereby "no eye has seen nor ear heard nor the mind of man conceived what God has in store for those who love him" such that we are given a taste of the glory of the living God who is also the all in all and the fount and source of all creation (with intent and intelligence made manifest). It is a first/last cause catching up with itself in us (as intended), and in and through the son of God, son of man as the pattern and model of perfection who never dies, because the love of God can never die.

The resurrection principal as the hope for everything that's worthwhile in life, even from life to life everlasting, is the very evolutionary principal of all new possibility and freedom including freedom of expression and experience for the human being, as a new domain or a pasture into which we may freely go and freely come and go, but after a while who would want to go back?!

For this reason I call myself an evolutionary Christian mystic, with a passionate hope for the new messianic age of spirit and reason blowing freely as a radical transformative liberation, from everything that was absurd and didn't make any sense to begin with.

And if we're on this side of the rainbow, then the other side is somehow already present, to whatever degree.

It's a one way street however, when it comes, and the living water flows freely and is freely available to all who thirst let them come and drink freely.

It's a non-dual tree of life, two trees (with the human brain fully integrated, left and right) standing in the midst of everything everywhere and at all levels, the tree of the duality of the knowledge (judgement) of good and evil conspicuously absent.

Set free for the sake of freedom to freely love as we are loved.

In my mind it's the simplicity of God;s love on the far side of complexity, and oh what a relief it is, to know that our deepest and truest and most authentic self, in Christ, is timeless, spaceless and eternal, already, making of this moment the beginning of a wonderful journey into God wherein death is already starting to lose it's sting..!

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Who can argue against love's reason?

I won't argue someone's reason to love. I will argue against having to accept someone's love.

And in the case of the OP, the love of this wicked god I do not care to have.

I still love you anyway.

You can choose to hate me if you wish, however, it's your prerogative.

The same love God has for me I am developing for my fellow man, and it shows and makes a difference in the way I treat other people, and when they see the loving compassion of Christ shining through me, they are quite astonished in a really good way, and then their angel smiles back at me. At the very least it's a great therapy in terms of interpersonal human relations.