It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You are having a reading comprehension problem.
So sinning is not missing the mark? Relative to repentance, I only ever said that repentance was simply recognizing that one is not separate from God - and such repentance is certainly far more than just a changing of one's mind!
You seem to be mixing the two things up: nearness, with knowledge of nearness.
. . . he gifted everyone who directly recognized him as Divine with this recognition of one's own non-separation from God . . .
Jesus created it himself, from day one, he was pushing away and pushing away, because he knew that the people could not understand that his Messiahship was to be of the Heavenly kind, not the earthly sort that everyone expected. It took his death and resurrection to be sure that they finally understood and could embrace them as their true Lord.
Paul created this rift between Jesus the God-Person and Christ as God elsewhere -
Originally posted by OpenEars123
God didn't love my partner, Mother or Grandparents.
He let them all get cancer and die.
If there is a god, he certainly doesn't love everybody.
edit on 18/4/13 by OpenEars123 because: (no reason given)
I don't have a clue how you could ask me this, unless you have not understood most of what I have been saying. I have repeatedly said that Jesus commandments are about loving God fully (= unconditionally) and one's neighbor as oneself - and only on the basis of recognizing that we are already NOT separate from God, is this possible. This was Jesus' great gift to all who would see it, and certainly not what Paul was tending to preach.
Originally posted by sacgamer25
Have you found unconditionall love here on earth? Why do you refuse to believe it possible?
See comment above. As I have also mentioned, you cannot seek, pursue, and as a result find Unconditional Love, as though it is some great Object or elsewhere. You have to release your egoic hold on yourself, and everything else internal and external, and recognize that one is already not separate from Unconditional Love. No egoic seeking, even for unconditional love, is going to allow such recognition.
Originally posted by sacgamer25
In your argument you are agreeing with Paul. We are not separate from God, but we are separate from unconditional love, for the mere fact that most of our brothers are in their sin living lives feeling separate from the love of God. Until all men realize the love of God and pursue it than the consolation is all we have.
How can there be non-separation from God and yet separation from love? Isn't God the same as Love?
Originally posted by sacgamer25
Myself and Paul we will continue to preach, love is for all, and until all find love there is a separation. Sin is separation, until sin is completely defeated their remains not separation from God but separation from love.
Oh I agree that world peace is not the case and that love is the necessary means or basis for feeling the unity in which we all arise. It is a matter of everyone recognizing that we are one people, unified at heart, arising in the same infinite unified Divine Light. This is the primary recognition upon which we can love and cooperate - which can result in peace. Peace is not an ideal, but the result of recognizing our unity, love, and cooperation.
Originally posted by sacgamer25
Until we have world peace than you have not experienced heaven, therefore it must be something to come, not something that has come. Just like Paul said. There is work that needs to be done simply because that is what God demands, works done in the name of love to spread love. He puts the seed of love in all men and for the one who he chooses to reveal himself to is commanded to feed his sheep. If even one is lost should we all not be concerned?
Originally posted by jmdewey60
You are having a reading comprehension problem.
The other person over on that other thread was falling into a specific fallacy by thinking repentance means changing your mind because of the root words making up the compound Greek word that we see in the New Testament.
You are falling into the same fallacy by thinking sin means missing the mark.
It probably meat that back when Plato was alive, but definitely not by the time that Paul was writing.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
Jesus created it himself, from day one, he was pushing away and pushing away, because he knew that the people could not understand that his Messiahship was to be of the Heavenly kind, not the earthly sort that everyone expected. It took his death and resurrection to be sure that they finally understood and could embrace them as their true Lord.
Yeah, well thanks for pointing that out, rude. You were going off on something about repentance.
And you seem to be having a rudeness problem. I asked "So sinning is not missing the mark?" and rather than just telling me how wrong I am, why not also at least tell me what you believe sin to mean during the time of Paul?
I'm not sure if that was the case. He got tired of all the attention and did things it seems more to show his disciples how it is done, then was happy to go off to a meeting room and argue with Pharisees and basically ditch everyone else.
Jesus clearly wanted to be accepted on earth by all, but knew the realities of the day.
I see that as a popular misconception about Paul. I noticed that sort of thing in a customer review on Amazon, of the book that I mentioned, that I was about exasperated with, wondering if the guy had read the same book.
Paul emphasized only the latter
Yes, but relative to living Jesus' commandments of love, I think sin is best defined as what it was originally assumed to mean - i.e., missing the mark.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
Yeah, well thanks for pointing that out, rude. You were going off on something about repentance.
Sin means sin, in the same way as repentance means repentance, I figured that would be the obvious corollary.
Oh, I don't doubt that Paul did more for the survival of the institution of Christianity as we know it today than anyone else did back then. But at the cost of having to significantly revise Jesus' original message of taking full responsibility for one's life and spiritual practice to the relatively easy believers approach with salvation in the end - guaranteed!
Originally posted by jmdewey60
He was constantly working towards legitimizing the church as being just as good as the Old Testament Israel and too many people take it as if he was talking about a kingdom in the sky when as far as I can tell, he doesn't at all.
I am really wondering why you say that sin definitely was not looked at as "missing the mark" during the time Paul was writing. How do you definitely know this?
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bb23108
So sinning is not missing the mark? Relative to repentance, I only ever said that repentance was simply recognizing that one is not separate from God - and such repentance is certainly far more than just a changing of one's mind!
You are falling into the same fallacy by thinking sin means missing the mark.
It probably meant that back when Plato was alive, but definitely not by the time that Paul was writing.
Originally posted by bb23108
I am really wondering why you say that sin definitely was not looked at as "missing the mark" during the time Paul was writing. How do you definitely know this?
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bb23108
So sinning is not missing the mark? Relative to repentance, I only ever said that repentance was simply recognizing that one is not separate from God - and such repentance is certainly far more than just a changing of one's mind!
You are falling into the same fallacy by thinking sin means missing the mark.
It probably meant that back when Plato was alive, but definitely not by the time that Paul was writing.
Even today, sin is commonly understood to mean "missing the mark". It has been my understanding for many years, though obviously many people think of it more in terms of disobeying the commandments, etc. - although that also can be said to be missing the mark. I think this understanding is important in terms of understanding repentance as well.edit on 19-4-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)
"Sell all your possessions", that would be the not so easy approach?
But at the cost of having to significantly revise Jesus' original message of taking full responsibility for one's life and spiritual practice to the relatively easy believers approach with salvation in the end - guaranteed!
You should avail yourself of the resources for discovering these things, mainly the Bible.cc website.
I am really wondering why you say that sin definitely was not looked at as "missing the mark" during the time Paul was writing.
God's Grace is ever present . . .
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Itisnowagain
God's Grace is ever present . . .
Right, and that is something I haven't gotten into on this thread, the multiple uses for that word in the New Testament.
For example, the child Jesus was full of grace. Oh, was he handing things out to people, or was he a person with positive personal attributes in general?
I could mean a lot of things but always good things.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Itisnowagain
God's Grace is ever present . . .
Right, and that is something I haven't gotten into on this thread, the multiple uses for that word in the New Testament.
I would include myself with "Man".
. . . but man does not notice the Glory of God because he is 'concerned' with his own survival, he is 'concerned' with his self . . .
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Itisnowagain
I would include myself with "Man".
. . . but man does not notice the Glory of God because he is 'concerned' with his own survival, he is 'concerned' with his self . . .
If that is what man is, then I am one, too.
I don't get all into the "glory" business, and normally think about what God can do for me, and I am being honest about it.
For example, hiking about in mountainous terrain by myself in the wilderness, I would pray a lot, as in constantly, because I would see myself constantly on the edge between life and death, where I don't want to fall over a rock and break my leg, or step over a log and get bitten by a rattlesnake, and I would think about it and ask God to like keep the snakes out of my way, and things like that.
Obviously I'm still alive, so I suppose I can say it worked, that there was a God out there listening to me, and helping me to survive. I have always been that way, that I always knew God was real and was always there and always listening to me and always helping me.
That is Grace, if we want to talk about grace, as in the New Testament, the writer will open his letter to whoever he is sending it to, saying, "grace be unto you", which means you don't die from the next plague that sweeps through the city or your country does not get invaded by a barbarian horde that kills half the people including you.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
Obviously I'm still alive, so I suppose I can say it worked, that there was a God out there listening to me, and helping me to survive. I have always been that way, that I always knew God was real and was always there and always listening to me and always helping me.
That is Grace, if we want to talk about grace, as in the New Testament, the writer will open his letter to whoever he is sending it to, saying, "grace be unto you", which means you don't die from the next plague that sweeps through the city or your country does not get invaded by a barbarian horde that kills half the people including you.