Love vs Tyranny

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

Recognized. Re-cognized.

Eucharist. You are Christ.

reply to post by vethumanbeing

Ego-self is also recognized is what I'm saying with a profound self-recognition (without getting re-locked into the delusion of Narcissus), and so then you have the same inauthentic self now authentically inauthentic and thus charming, carefree, a creative self who is unconcerned and un-preocuppied with himself (non particular non seperative self). The creative man is a happy man who isn't concerned with particulars because God has become his condition and that's the practice, the Sadhana, to bask in the bliss of our true condition, and even if you look around you cannot deny it, and my it's magnificent (behold the Universe!).

And we get to be not who we were, necessarily (faulty inauthentic self) but simply who we are being and are creating where the dilemma and the solution to the problem resides at the very leading edge of the very tip of our ongoing present moment experience, so with practice we can spend and devote more and more time there in that space of communion, until another comes along to enjoy our company and we, their's.

It's a beautiful thing that's for sure, and a nice feeling, a peace not of this world but only as he gives it freely from the fount of peace and joy and everlasting satisfaction.

It requires great courage at first, and then none at all once the humor of true understanding has been achieved because that's the knowledge of personal experience (real knowledge as self knowledge).

That is the purpose of this transmission, to get me there and you there both at the same time, building the mystical body of the Bride of the Spirit of truth and life and love.

Welcome to the great Wedding Table of the Lord God Almighty - how inviting!

I ought to become a new type of pastor or something because this stuff is great, you don't get this quality of a philosophical argument too many other places, it's pretty precious for those who will (who wish to "grok").

It all boils down to a fundamental choice really - do we want to be constrained and limited in who we are or unconstrained and without limitation? If the latter we must do the Sadhana as much as possible and eventually all the time if only because nothing else makes any sense or is reasonable by comparison.

That's the question posed by the argument.


"He who keeps his life will lose it but however loses his life for my sake will find it again."

Re-born.

From above..!

Then the spirit blows where it will, radically free..

Nicodemus and Jesus - Reborn
go to 2:24 in the vid - segment runs to 5:35

Originally posted by vethumanbeing

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

Recognized. Re-cognized.

Eucharist. You are Christ.

Eat me!

But don't take that the wrong way!

And it doesn't come from me, maybe at best through me as a communication from Him who apportioned it out (the light body and the mystical body of the son of God).

To eat and drink is also to invite others to eat and drink, it's just the way it is.

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 22:17

The end / New Beginning.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

Ego-self is also recognized is what I'm saying with a profound self-recognition (without getting re-locked into the delusion of Narcissus), and so then you have the same inauthentic self now authentically inauthentic and thus charming, carefree, a creative self who is unconcerned and un-preocuppied with himself (non particular non seperative self). The creative man is a happy man who isn't concerned with particulars because God has become his condition and that's the practice, the Sadhana, to bask in the bliss of our true condition, and even if you look around you cannot deny it, and my it's magnificent (behold the Universe!).

So as you recognised your self you re-cognised or unlocked the delusion of Narcissus. Now you become your authentic self without bounds. Man is very creative if left alone to its own inventiveness.

newageman
And we get to be not who we were, necessarily (faulty inauthentic self) but simply who we are being and are creating where the dilemma and the solution to the problem resides at the very leading edge of the very tip of our ongoing present moment experience, so with practice we can spend and devote more and more time there in that space of communion, until another comes along to enjoy our company and we, their's.

.

Your present moment is the most satisfying, those pure moments of understanding and clarity; the present not the past defines the future potencial. Those that join you are supposed to, any correspondance you are partaking is designed; to enhance and enlighten your already open views to the extraordiary vistas of self awareness.

newageman
It's a beautiful thing that's for sure, and a nice feeling, a peace not of this world but only as he gives it freely from the fount of peace and joy and everlasting satisfaction.
It requires great courage at first, and then none at all once the humor of true understanding has been achieved because that's the knowledge of personal experience (real knowledge as self knowledge).
That is the purpose of this transmission, to get me there and you there both at the same time, building the mystical body of the Bride of the Spirit of truth and life and love.
Welcome to the great Wedding Table of the Lord God Almighty - how inviting!

Courage to step in front and take the mortar shelling; wounds heal. Spirit and body must start communicating with each other.

newageman
I ought to become a new type of pastor or something because this stuff is great, you don't get this quality of a philosophical argument too many other places, it's pretty precious for those who will (who wish to "grok").

This forum, thread is up there regarding content; but its the OP and contributors minds that drive it. I absolutely know the meaning of "to grok"; and that would be to understand at once in an instantainous flash of insight "EVERYTHING" that has been is everything else as well.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by vethumanbeing

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

Recognized. Re-cognized.

Eucharist. You are Christ.

Eat me!

But don't take that the wrong way!

And it doesn't come from me, maybe at best through me as a communication from Him who apportioned it out (the light body and the mystical body of the son of God).

To eat and drink is also to invite others to eat and drink, it's just the way it is.

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 22:17

The end / New Beginning.

Your light body met someone that was the body of the son of God, otherwise youd not recall it (at a buffet table at a wedding banquet was probably eating anything but the bread and fish course). Think of this, we are all sacrifices of one sort or another as in we know we are destined to give up our bodies NOT our spirits, to ourselves--to our creator, or to our accumulated Karma? We are the ONLY beings in this universe that know we will eventually die (this is a hard concept) by whatever means. The REAL hidden meaning behind "Eucharist" describes our validation, destiny and demise; what do we return to, our higher self.

reply to post by windword

You haven't considered all the extra-Biblical sources let alone the contextual criticism of the Gospels and Epistles themselves.

Check this out re: historical Jesus.

reply to post by vethumanbeing

My testimony then is that of Peter where it's not by flesh and bones or in my case even by sight, but by reason and logic that I call him the Son of the Living God and know him and love him and each at the table with him, including fish and bread. Sick of fish though (if one is Peter).. you're right.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

My testimony then is that of Peter where it's not by flesh and bones or in my case even by sight, but by reason and logic that I call him the Son of the Living God and know him and love him and each at the table with him including fish and bread. Sick of fish though.. you're right.

Cannot speak for Peter, but by flesh and bone you do not survive anything beyond this realm on Earth; the pervasive idea of coddling/saving/burying the dis-eased body after death is morbidly unsound. By reason and logic you can identify him the Son of the Living God; you have the choice to suspend disbelief, to go in courage to have no doubt. Once you accomplish this simple thing you are free. "You are the flesh and bone, you are the One". Origin 2012.

reply to post by vethumanbeing


We can't put it off though because is the question posed to us and an invitation (a loving invitation) by the Reality itself.

Best then to "die" and get it over with, by dying to an outmoded and deluded self (Narcissus) and in so doing resurrect to the eternal life.

So it's a resurrection and evolutionary principal of life meeting life already - then and only then can we face death with a smile once it's lost its sting.

The happy humor never ends, once we have the courage and the wisdom to "get the joke" even at the expense of all our prior ignorance.

"Life is a Mighty Joke. He who knows this can hardly be understood by others. He who does not know it finds himself in a state of delusion. He may ponder over this problem day and night, but will find himself incapable of knowing it. Why? People take life seriously, and God lightly; whereas we must take God seriously, and take life lightly. Then, we know that we always were the same and will ever remain the same.......the Originator of this joke. This knowledge is not acheived by reasoning.
But it is the knowledge of experience."

~ Meher Baba

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I'm sorry, but those videos are filled with tired old information that has either been debunked or is just not reliable enough to prove the existence of Jesus, the man or myth, of the Bible.

This has already been hashed through in this thread, and nothing to do with the topic, Love vs Tyranny.

reply to post by windword

You're the one that brought it up and I was just addressing it, that even the earliest historians who might have had every reason to say there was no such person, didn't.

My argument btw that I've put forward these last couple of pages, comes from the logic and reason of Jesus Christ, so it you don't recognize the man at least acknowledge his wisdom and understanding - one would have to READ the gospels again with an open mind however to see it, to "grok" it most fully.

Given my posts about the commonly presumed myth that God is Other (or is the Creator-God of all) did not solicit any responses here, and that this presumption is the necessary basis for the op's argument - I am wondering what people think about the following:

(1) What was Jesus speaking about in terms of his commandments of love if not about the inherent non-separation (indivisibility) of God and all.

(2) Does assuming one is already not-separate from God conform to current day Christianity? It was obviously a dangerous position to assume in Jesus' day, but if that is what he actually taught, why don't Christians assume this indivisibility with the Divine today, given our religious freedom? Furthermore, to assume one's connection with Jesus but not also directly with the Divine, seems to deny what Jesus taught about his (and anyone's) non-separation from God.

(3) Do you agree that if we assume we are not inherently separate from God or anyone or anything, that we must become responsible for everything in our lives, inwardly and outwardly, physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, etc.? By handling all aspects of our lives responsibly for the sake of love's equanimity, this grants a foundation for the esoteric aspects of Jesus' teaching relative to the Holy Ghost, the Divine Spirit Breath, etc.

My prior post is here with more details of Jesus' teaching that assuming God as the Great (and separate) Other is false:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Again, if Christians (and all of us) understood this myth of otherness as false, the spiritual aspects of this life would be much more accessible, and religion would find its proper place with us.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

My argument btw that I've put forward these last couple of pages, comes from the logic and reason of Jesus Christ, so it you don't recognize the man at least acknowledge his wisdom and understanding

I've only read the philosophy of NewAgeMan in your posts in this thread.

My posts and debates have been in regard to the God of the OT being evil and tyrannical, and pointing out that Jesus' teachings seem to introduce to us a different God.

In arguing my position, I presented some similarities between the Essene doctrine and the teachings of Jesus.

I can't prove that Jesus was an Essene any more than I can prove he existed.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

My argument btw that I've put forward these last couple of pages, comes from the logic and reason of Jesus Christ, so it you don't recognize the man at least acknowledge his wisdom and understanding

I've only read the philosophy of NewAgeMan in your posts in this thread.

My posts and debates have been in regard to the God of the OT being evil and tyrannical, and pointing out that Jesus' teachings seem to introduce to a different God.

In arguing my position, I presented some similarities between the Essene doctrine and the teachings of Jesus.

I can't prove that Jesus was an Essene any more than I can prove he existed.

Who needs proof? He was an Essene true and tried, because of this and his open distain for the Saduccee and Pharasee (representing the monied, and the warped oral tradition of the Torah) died. No one on his team Essene there to represent him not even his recalcitrant FRATERS for a reason). Can you not devine this, what is the problem in your refusal to know the truth, all you have to do is ask your higher being (yourself) and trust its infinite wisdom. Its all there right in front of your eyes.

reply to post by vethumanbeing

Who needs proof? He was an Essene true and tried, because of this and his open distain for the Saduccee and Pharasee (representing the monied, and the warped oral tradition of the Torah) died. No one on his team Essene there to represent him not even his recalcitrant FRATERS for a reason). Can you not devine this, what is the problem in your refusal to know the truth, all you have to do is ask your higher being (yourself) and trust its infinite wisdom. Its all there right in front of your eyes.

That's exactly what I have been saying throughout this thread. Jesus was an Essene. His mission encompassed the restoration of the true Torah. The Essenes taught that the Torah was corrupted by the wicked and evil Hebrew priests.

If you follow my postings in this thread, you'll see I've been defending this argument for 15+ pages!

I read several of your well-thought out posts again, windword, and want to ask you about this one.

Originally posted by windword
Again, my point is that Jesus rejected the tyrannical God of the Old Testament and introduced a "new", kinder, gentler "father of all" God.

The purpose of introducing Jesus and the Essenes into the debate, was to offer evidence that the God of the Old Testament's brutality and tyranny was acknowledged and rejected by this Jewish sect and they squarely put the blame of promoting intolerance and tyranny on the Pharisees and Sadducees.

They believed that the Torah, the true path to enlightenment and spiritual freedom, had been deliberately corrupted by wicked, self serving priests. Jesus echoed this sentiment in his teachings.

The God of the Old Testament and his tyranny needs to flatly rejected, not emulated or whitewashed or disguised as love, but seen for what he is, EVIL!

Do you see the "new" God you reference above based in the same "God as the Great Other" presumption, which Jesus looked to replace the "old" tyrannical version with?

In other words, do you see Jesus' version of God based in the same presumption that God is Other (separate) - or as indivisible and all-inclusive of everyone and everything, i.e., non-separate, not "Other"?

reply to post by bb23108


I know you didn't ask me, but I don't think Jesus taught about an "other" or "separate" god, but a god that includes everyone and everything. Those who killed him are the ones who changed his message to an "other" or "separate" god after his death.

reply to post by bb23108


Hi bb,

I think that the average Hebrew were worshiping according to how their priests instructed them, and that they viewed God as an overseeing being of judgement and wrath. Therefore, the Hebrews feared offending this deity, who had just become some sort of idol that needed to be appease through sacrifice and money benefiting the priests rather than providing a sense of spirituality and purpose.

Jesus introduced a concept of God to the average Hebrew that was revolutionary, and gave the individual a path to inner revelation through a spiritual communion with the God that resided within us all, replacing the priest's role, as the intermediary to a "separated" God's mercy. He taught that by reflecting the inner God to the outside, mundane world, we are bringing God's kingdom to Earth.

More subtly, and for the more intellectual student, he taught that the outside and the inside should be one in the same. So, to answer your question, I hope, No, I don't believe that Jesus taught of a God that is separate and needs to be found through outside sources or actions, such as animal sacrifice.

reply to post by windword


Why is worship necessary at all? Why is veneration not enough? Respect, even? Why do we have to worship anything?