Love vs Tyranny

reply to post by windword


Yeah I'll try. It'll be hard though.

Soooo, it that clear and concise post an affirmation that He was a historical figure or that He was not?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

First of all, God gave us free will, not sin.

Here's my response to free will, according to Christianity:

In matters of omniscience and omnipotence, there are only two choices:

1. There is an opportunity at some point along a particular timeline. "God" prevents it.

2. There is an opportunity at some point along a particular timeline. "God" allows it.

At any given moment in any given timeline in any given place, both choices belong to "God" and "God" alone. Any illusion of choice in our lives results from his having made one of the two choices above. Nothing can happen unless one of those two choices is made.

In this sense, free will is an illusion for every single creature and object that isn't "God". All choices pass through his screening process before we are ever aware of the opportunity to make those choices, but we think we have free will because we can't miss a choice we never had. And "God", knowing this, is laughing all the while.

I look at it like a circle of dots. If you see the whole circle, you can choose one at random and count all the way around until you reach it again. But if you only see a small portion of it at a time, twenty dots become an infinite number because your perception leads you to believe that there is still more dots to be followed. Because of your limited perception, you remain ignorant of the reality of the circle, and you chase yourself in circles for your entire existence, because you never realize you're tracing the same path. Now say a loop extends from that circle, leading back around to it. You follow that loop and you believe you've found an entirely new circle. Sometimes, it changes color just to sustain that illusion. But it's still the same circle.

That's called the illusion of free will. You see it everywhere, if only you can peek outside the little box of your limited perception. It's possible, but you have to be willing to accept what you find. If you don't want answers, don't ask questions.

Moving on...

Sin is the natural consequence of free will and the knowledge of good and evil.

If "God" were to reach inside your head and take the wheel from you, and drive you to commit unspeakable acts, and then replace your absent memories, making you think you were really the one who did it, you wouldn't know. And if you were confronted with it, you would fight with all your strength to deny it. You would blame it on the Annunaki, on the demons, on everything but the one person who has the power to control the entire world from an armchair thousands of light years away.

You can't say he's never done it, you can't say you have free will, because if you didn't, you would never know. That's the miracle of being in thrall to an omnipotent being. Especially one that acts so human, that experiences human emotions and human desires. You can take nothing for granted. You can trust nothing. Ever. So I'm asking you to give me some good reasons why he wouldn't.

Plus Paul argues, and this makes sense, that God gave the law that condemned all men, therefore the only way to free man was for that lawgiver to die.

But he didn't die, or we wouldn't still be praying to him. The lawmaker is alive and well, according to you. Which means we are all still bound. Technically speaking, his death means nothing because it wasn't a true death. He reneged. No wonder we're still going through hell.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

But he didn't die, or we wouldn't still be praying to him. The lawmaker is alive and well, according to you. Which means we are all still bound. Technically speaking, his death means nothing because it wasn't a true death. He reneged. No wonder we're still going through hell.

He did die, and because He has no sin He was resurrected. Jesus said He came to die, and said His blood was the covenant, and said He would spend three days and nights in the Earth.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


The jury is still out on the reality of the Biblical account of Jesus, in my case.

You should know that I was raised in a "Holy Roller", Assembly of God, Pentecostal community, in which our pastor, within a group of churches and pastors that shared youth camps, choir trips, retreats ect. that all taught that Jesus was a member of the Essenes. So, I come from a background where this assumption was never in question.

Never the less, their fundamental views on society and their persistent use of fear tactics and coercion, plus actually reading the Bible, turned me away from the general Christian philosophy.

For arguments sake, I will agree that Jesus did indeed exist, however I do not accept his virgin birth, divinity, blood sacrifice for my sins, or his resurrection from the dead. I'm not divorced from the ideas that he may have been the son of Caesar and Cleopatra, or that he was a combination of teachers and myths.

In my opinion, and observations, Jesus was a revered teacher, thought by the Essene community to be the "resurrection" (reincarnation) of their beloved "Teacher of Righteousness" who promised to return as the messiah. He taught the true meaning and restoration of the true "Torah".

"Christ" is a metaphysical concept that encompasses the immortal and upright righteousness of the true essence of humanity. It is, in my opinion, the "Holy Spirit" which possibly possessed the body of the person, Jesus, at the time of his baptism, and began his short but awesome ministry.

That's my point of view and I'ma stickin to it!

reply to post by windword


Alright fair enough. So what does it mean to you when that pbs site you linked said there was no evidence at all that Jesus or His cousin were Essene?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


To me, it meant that they were addressing the controversy, covering the bases, so to speak, but couldn't comment on the facts, one way or the other, as there was no solid evidence to their existence, in the Essene community or anywhere else in their archaeological evidence, related to their Dead Sea Scrolls presentation.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

He did die, and because He has no sin He was resurrected. Jesus said He came to die, and said His blood was the covenant, and said He would spend three days and nights in the Earth.

Why did he have to die? Why was such a brutal sacrifice necessary? If he was the mortal incarnation of "God", there's much less painful ways, far more efficient ways, of making a point. Becoming a martyr is the worst possible way of proving you are a god. Oh, gee, you're going to die exactly like numerous humans before and after you, even while you claim to be a god.

Surely there was a better way. And yes, I am questioning it, because from what I can tell, he didn't do a very good job of proving himself. You'd think he'd visit every once in a while, remind people he's still around, shut the naysayers up...generally make it easier for us to believe him.

Are we supposed to believe against all odds? Are we supposed to believe even though we have ever reason not to? What's that supposed to prove? That we don't need a reason to believe in something? You would think rational logic would preside over irrational belief, but maybe that's just me.

Either way, I don't see how the brutal sacrifice of your only son is necessary when you literally have a thousand options at your disposal, each as easy and extravagant as the next. But I guess when you're willing to kill off your own child, people start to take you seriously.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Have you ever heard of Ravi Zacharias?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

To me, it meant that they were addressing the controversy, covering the bases, so to speak, but couldn't comment on the facts, one way or the other, as there was no solid evidence to their existence, in the Essene community or anywhere else in their archaeological evidence, related to their Dead Sea Scrolls presentation.

Then isn't the claim that He and JTB were Essene arbitrary?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I don't know what that means.

PBS wouldn't have addressed it if the question hadn't, somehow, come up.

Their answer is akin to "I can neither confirm nor deny that assertion."

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Have you ever heard of Ravi Zacharias?

Enlighten me, if you would. Thank you.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
There's a very interesting book that I read some time ago called Tryptamine Palace by James Oroc (a pseudonym) in which a certain type of altered state is achieved by which there is absolute ego dissolution along with what might be called a neurological Bose-Einstein Condensate (single cosmic neuron), which when taken together with quantum, non-local consciousness, puts forward a rather convincing and startling proposition - that everything that is is consciousness and love. He described it as an indomitable and unconquerable love, fearful if one was at odds with it because it was a tyranny of love, the very heart of the whole universe, combined wth a desperate and powerful longing for unity in love.

This tyranny of love is broken and rendered with a liberating presentation however in the person of Jesus, even as the mystical body of the son of man, so it's here, in human form, where it's presented gently and kindly as an inviting, imminently inviting, ye non coercive unconditionally loving manner by Jesus in the role of son of God, placing you and I of course within that same context, and so there it is again, and there may be some fear, but if it's real love then it's also a liberating love which sets us free, even as the truth that sets us free i.e.: nothing to be afraid of (and that's funny).

So if there's a point where the tyranny of love is broken, it's in the restoration of our humor and our charm, and our most freely and authentically self expressed self even if that person is equally inscrutable, unfathomable, mysterious, and loving.


"It is love." - he kept saying over and over again.

That's both scary and invitingly humorous both at the same time, such a prospect of a tyranny of love..! LOL

bump for consideration, might have been passed over in the midst of the debate..

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by vethumanbeing

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

Do you ever make posts that aren't rhetoric?

You mean utilizing an art or science of using works effectively in writing; (some skill required in this) as an eloquence, a showiness and elaborate deliberate usage of language and literary style? emphasising a point no answer really being expected?
NEVER!!!!

"Empty speech" would he the layman's term. Devoid of any real value.

THAT I can understand, The Layman. A member of the Laity, a person not a Clergyman; so, you are a person of no profession?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

We've all shared our subjective opinion several times already. What else do you want from us?

Why do you think "God" is love? Even after what Windword posted?

I already answered that. Because of what He has done for us in His Son, Christ Jesus.

You really need to talk to Jesus about now and ask him what he thinks about userly circumstance. You might be surprised as to what his regard is for its Creator (why dont you talk to him; or better yet "his Father"). What astounds me is that all of you posting to this or any threads, have no direct connection to Origin, that you do not nor does it speak to you (very clearly) on a daily basis, and if you think you are doing so by reading spripture or 'praying' you would be mislead. Why have you not opened that conduit? Is it fear, doubt or both in your abilities. Perhaps no one has informed you of your incredible potencial in accomplishing this?

A Tyranny of Love


It's a tyranny of love, whose fear is and can only be "broken" by the giggles and laughter of the child within.


That's very effective and functional. Adi Da Samraj, and Jesus, would be pleased.

Only a child would have "no fear" of a tyranny of love, because on the other side of the fear is an invitation to play (be creative, have fun, enjoy). Be quite literally IN love, the way it was always supposed to be before we completely deluded ourselves with ourselves.

Nothing else makes any sense, as an egioc construct or frame of reference ie: subject/object duality (separation)

Only absolute love is love or it's no love at all. It's all or nothing, and that's funny, that it's so uncompromising that it's not willing to compromise with our ego and leave us orphaned as a separative self. HA! We were included and accepted all along, even encouraged, but we did not know it.

Therefore the unifying principal at the heart of things, is this all or nothing, unconditionally loving (who's only "condition is freedom, in the domain of love, or again it wouldn't be love) Love (capital L), as the the all in all and our own prior condition, in God as the all in all in ALL!

So it's the ultimate universal invitation then, to participate, and reintegrate and grow towards it's absolute unrelenting and uncompromising imperative, which seeks both unity and unity in variety, and therefore it celebrates the communion of the brotherhood of man in Christ (man perfected and fully realized in eternity) yet with each person's own unique spiritual experience part of the continued evolution of the mystical body (at all levels) of the son of God which includes us all.

But such a "tyranny" by it's very nature, isn't and can never be an imposition upon the mind and the heart and soul of man because it's our natural native state of mind and being to begin with as our everlasting joy and satisfaction even the who and what in regards to ourselves and our own true nature as children of a loving and all-inclusive God

It's food, for our enjoyment, for our happiness.

If it "bullies" us in any way, it demands that we be ever-more courageous and willing to be at peace, and in joy, without any concern whatsoever for the prior, separative self, who surrendered in the face of a tyranny of love, and against which there is no argument, and no more questions asked.

The self surrendered, but not without reintegration. "He who keeps his live will lose it but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it again."

It's everything ELSE but, the one thing of immense or incalculable value (treasure sought, precious pearl sought), immediately sold off and thrown away for the garbage that it always was and represented! The taking off of self and the putting on of Christ which is also man glorified and eventually sanctified and perfected, and made whole both in God and, no less important, in communion with one another through the simple enjoyment of one another's company.

The healing of experience within our prior dilemma was an ongoing present moment concern, a self-contraction in other words, like a tight fist holding nothing of any value and at all cost even to the cost of truth and reality itself i.e.: picture narcissus held in the mirror (no awareness but self deluded/absorbed) and locked into the only thing that dies (false self and reality).

That's what we ALL need (to let go and let God and allow God to become our true and everlasting condition and in so doing inform us of the truth and the reality) and if it's a "tyranny of love", with love's good humor and childlike glee that's required to get the job done, then sobeit! And really, how could it be any other way when you really think about it and think it all the way through to it's rational and reasonable conclusion, so it's also the heart of reason and logic. Wow! It all makes sense!

Best Regards,

NAM

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
Is it fear, doubt or both in your abilities. Perhaps no one has informed you of your incredible potencial in accomplishing this?

I think I might have just informed the thread, and of course my post might even go completely ignored as the debate rages on, but it was there because I wrote it, I put it there, the word as a seed, may it find rich soil...

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Okay Newageman, I'll bite.

It's a tyranny of love, whose fear is and can only be "broken" by the giggles and laughter of the child within.

It's pretty poetry, but I can't make sense of it. Is love the subject of this sentence, or tyranny? Who's fear can only be broken by giggles?

Hypothetically, if saw some looser bullies mugging a little old lady, would you step in, use a loud voice and throw a fist or two, or would you giggle like a little child?

Only a child would have "no fear" of a tyranny of love, because on the other side of the fear is an invitation to play (be creative, have fun, enjoy).

Really? Is there no fear in a child's life? Because, I remember experiencing a lot of fear in my childhood. There was no invitation to play in a serious household that held that expressing joy and self love was a sign of weakness and an invitation to sin.

The self surrendered, but not without reintegration. "He who keeps his live will lose it but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it again."

Exactly! That was exactly how they indoctrinated, err, reintegrated, me.

Tyranny is forced submission, errr, surrender.. Are you suggesting that "Love" who is God, uses suffering and oppression to force our submission, in order for us to experience ultimate love?

That's what we ALL need (to let go and let God and allow God to become our true and everlasting condition and in so doing inform us of the truth and the reality) and if it's a "tyranny of love", with love's good humor and childlike glee that's required to get the job done, then sobeit!

So when the Israelites were attacking a village, you advice to villagers would have been "Let go and let God."? Is the Jealous and wrathful Yahweh just an expression of good humor? How about our current global state of war. More of God's good humor?

If so, what is the purpose of charity?

Your philosopher is real pretty on paper, but how does it apply to the real world?

reply to post by windword

You misunderstand what I am saying because of a certain filter you're using. Love is love. To submit to it is only to become one with it, and the only thing separate from it, is the ego or narcissus.

Once the giggle and the laughter comes on the other side of fear, when we get present to fear of a "tyranny of love" then fear is dissolved. Only the love remains, indomitable, unconquerable, inevitable? (I like to think so).

But that it contends with our ego head-on and without compromise is what makes it amuzing and causes the inner child who was being held hostage to the lowest bidder (inauthentic faulty and deluded ego projections or contractions), to be set free as the true and authentic and fully and freely self expressed human being (without limitation or constraint).

That's funny, that's where the giggles and the laughter come in, because it's in it's tyranny that is contained the liberty of the authentic self, the one who found his life in willing to lose it (prior attachments ia: faulty egoic structures or delusions aka all the horse#). It is therefore the humor of true understanding and true God-realization (when the self is undone, surrendered to love's reason).

Separation and the separative ego-self is what (it was never really a "who" to begin with, more of an "it") eventually submits to a differentiation (profound self-knowledge) and reintegration (made whole) with Reality itself, re-born of and to Love, of which there's only one, only one condition, and one Absolute Love. One, not more than one.

It's all there is, but lo and behold what do we find ourselves framed within, but a field of play and possibility..?

Who wants to play?

That's the question posed by love's reason - it's an invitation, only "tyrannical" in the sense that one would have to be an absolute fool or blind to refuse or reject it and retreat to some dark corner and steadfast refuse to come out and play, ever again, the end.

It's what remains, beckoning unrelentingly. To choose anything else is to choose a dead end because it (the domain of love) is the domain of limitless freedom and possibility.

Who would knowingly shut themselves out of the flow of life and the free gift of eternal life? No one, no sane and reasonable person anyway, and I'm just here as a conduit to re-extend the invitation of all ages, once again, and you get two stars for your post yet I get none, notice that? Ha! That's both sad and funny at the same time you see.

Best Regards,

NAM

reply to post by NewAgeMan


What you're saying isn't coming out very clearly. Could you explain it more simply?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

We've all shared our subjective opinion several times already. What else do you want from us?

Why do you think "God" is love? Even after what Windword posted?

Many people believe this, many people do not. I find that I cannot simply believe it - it is necessary to recognize the truth of this directly. Belief is just the opposite of doubt - both are a mental activity that appears to separate us from God, real love, or Reality Itself..

AfterInfinity and I have had a round of discussion on the "God loves me" thread about his core argument regarding love and tyranny. From his op:

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
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.

His argument rests upon the presumption that God is a Great Other, the all-powerful Creator, separate, to be loved and worshiped. But is this what Jesus actually taught - that God is a separate Other? Rather than reposting it all here, please see this post and the several after it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As those posts and quotes point out, Jesus taught no-separation, between God and himself, between himself and all others - and also called for his followers to recognize that no separation exists between them and him and God as well. This was Jesus' great gift to all - the freeing of all from the tyranny of separation, of objectifying the Divine as some Super-Entity in charge of everything.

It is the assumption of separation from God that is our original sin, and Jesus taught freedom from this through his commandments of love (non-separation), and his instructions and initiation of his disciples into God as Indivisible Light through esoteric means - i.e., his blessing transmissions of the Holy Spirit.

Once this objectification of God as "the Great Other" is profoundly understood to be a myth that permeates almost all religious traditions - and one's inherent unity with Reality is recognized rather than separated from - then there is freedom from tyranny because Reality is not exploitable, Reality is inherently free of all illusions, and the being becomes heart-intelligent, discriminating, and love itself.

If way more Christians enjoyed what Jesus actually offered in terms of his instructions and blessings on a daily basis in real esoteric terms even, then these types of arguments would vanish because the basis for them (the objectification of the Divine) would also vanish. One's inherent non-separation from God would be obvious and certain.

Of course, such following of Jesus' core commandments is only truly possible if non-separation from Reality or Prior Unity is at least tacitly recognized from the beginning, providing the basis for taking responsibility for all of one's life and practice. This tacit heart-recognition that we all arise in indivisible unity is our inherent capability in any moment, because it is already the case.

Without the release of this primary myth, there is much I can agree with in terms of this particular argument the op presents here, and it makes Christianity as commonly understood and presented much more difficult for many many people to (continue to) justify.