What/who is G-d?

[wil]

So maybe we need to discover the variety of liberal/progressive Christian thinking....or maybe it is just me.

So what are our varieties of interpretation of G-d?

Now in one respect I highly value and respect the Judaic tradition of not mentioning the name, nor identifying or defining as any of our definitions diminish the power of the whole....but in another, I'd like to know where we are in our understanding....as a basis for discussion.

Now it has been said that G-d doesn't care whether we say She, He or even It, just don't put them all together...

I have real issues with the old anthropomorphic male gender Santa Claus version that Michaelangelo gave us on the ceiling....in one respect...in another (take another perspective) I absolutely admire the cutaway brain he provided with an indication of creation coming from our frontal lobe...what we focus on we create...what we resist persists...




I think the s/he is convenient for speaking, but it often confuses.. I am ok with referencing Christ Consciousness, Universal Conscioiusness, the Universe, Source, Creator....or G-d. But I see spirit as all pervasive, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent...in everything, all of spirit in everything from the smallest atom particle to the largest whole, can't be divided...

So this is where I have issues with caring, forgiving etc. G-d doesn't have anything to care or forgive as there is no blame...G-d is...and the world is perfect as it is....or are we sayin there was some mistake made in creation...I don't think so.

As with any posts on of my posts on the boards these are my thoughts, and I reserve the right to change them as I learn more about this world.

I'd love to hear your thoughts...

[Thomas]

Hi Wil -
(as this is the LC board, I promise not to get all dogmatic.)

Now in one respect I highly value and respect the Judaic tradition of not mentioning the name, nor identifying or defining as any of our definitions diminish the power of the whole....but in another, I'd like to know where we are in our understanding....as a basis for discussion...

Frithjof Schuon, the great Sufi metaphsician, drew a 'firm' (is that allowable in the context of the discussion ... I think yes?) distinction between 'understanding' and 'belief' on the basis of what we understand does not make us who we are - Socrates tackled the same question by asking do we know what we know? In his famous discourse, recorded by Plato (and I forget which) he asked three soldiers (he had been a soldier) what was 'courage' and got three separete answers. The point made was they were instances of courage, but they do not define courage itself. So we have a tendency to settle to what we like, and succumb to sentiment (in its lower order).

And they might not be courage at all. A Vietnam vet once told me of:
1 - the man who crawled out under fire to drag a wounded comrade to safety.
2 - the man who 'wigged out' and attacked a superior force, overcoming them by his ferocity.
3 - the man who was a professional gambler and 'worked the odds' and brought his men through time and again by coldly calculating the most advantageous course ... he was last seen charging an enemy outpost head-on (the statistically best course of action - the enemy has more time to shoot at you running away; an attack will unsettle him) ... a short while later the VC were utilising his tactical 'signature' at it was the vet's firm belief the guy worked the odds and went over to the enemy. There was a considerable financial reward on offer at the time (twice the offer for the man's head).

In his opinion, only no1 is truly courageous.

Most people know that smoking, or speeding, or name your vice, increases the risk of death. So do we stop doing it. No we don't. We might 'understand' it, but we don't adhere to it ... we don't live according to it ... we don't believe it will kill me (some do ... go figure... ?)

Bluntly - 30,000 children a day are dying in Africa. We have the power to stop it, but we don't, because it will cost us, and we offset the cost against comfortability ... we find reasons not to act.

The question is, do we glibly pay lip service to what we say we know...

... I mean, if we all 'believed' utterly, however we know Him/Her/It - we'd live visibly as saints by anybody's book, right? Is it a question of simply lacking courage?

***

Now it has been said that G-d doesn't care whether we say She, He or even It, just don't put them all together...

But God cares about what we do ... and it can only be because it will cost us, it can't cost God (if we accept God as Absolute and Immutable).

---
- in reviewing my answer I realise this is an act of faith - but I base it on ther fact that all the great wisdoms imply an order of engagement with the transcendant, which can only be attained by 'grace' (even in a Buddhist persective); transcendant in this sense meaning outside of self; were it possible for the 'self to transcend itself' under its own steam, its possibility must reside within itself, therefore this is not technically transcendance ... the oak tree is in the acorn, but the acorn does not transcend itself in becoming an oak tree - it remains within its nature...

... God is in me, but that does not make me God, and if it is possible to be in God, then that possibility must lie in God's nature, not mine ... else i would be God already ... so my act of faith is in saying I am not God -

---
Perhaps in Wisdom God says "think of me this way" as the best way (with all that the word implies) to unite ourselves to God - accepting that the very question presupposes we are not as much as perhaps we believe we might be (I'm trying not to be dogmatic here!) ... I think we can accept the Wisdom of God exceeds the wisdom of man ...

***

I have real issues with the old anthropomorphic male gender Santa Claus version that Michaelangelo gave us on the ceiling....in one respect...in another (take another perspective) I absolutely admire the cutaway brain he provided with an indication of creation coming from our frontal lobe...what we focus on we create...what we resist persists...

I never saw that before! (The cutaway brain bit.) The gender bit is problematic. My only solution is to believe God as male equivalent to God as active ... but then in the face of all traditional (sacred or esoteric) symbology, which would imply female as passive/receptive, the number 2 to the male 1, we are brought into sharp conflict with an icon stained by a human history of gender politics. I tell myself that only in truly being 'oneself' one is free - and one's gender is inescapably part of the definition of self (although not the principle of self as such - in which case it is a contingent mode of being) and thus the 'freedom' to be woman-as-woman can only express itself when it defines itself according to what it is to be woman, and not in respect to man, a tragic example of which is 'ladette' culture in the UK when the woman proves herself the equal of any man by drinking until she causes a scene/disurbance/passes out/throws up.

So twofold. Yes there is the tragedy of gender politics but we have to rise above it if we are to see clearly, that a) we are equal and b) we are different ... and thus are suited to symbolise different things.

***

I think the s/he is convenient for speaking, but it often confuses...

Agreed.

I am ok with referencing Christ Consciousness, Universal Conscioiusness, the Universe, Source, Creator....or G-d.

I find this confusing. Saying I am conscious of the universe does not equate to 'universal consciousness' - or rather because I am conscious, I am an instance of universal consciousness, but not the thing itself. Because I am conscious, I know I am conscious, like others I see around me, who are also consciuous, but not me ... that implies a consciousness that transcends the idea of 'me' ... that's what I want to be conscious of, but then I will have to be in it, and not it in me ... can I separate self from self-consciousness? Is not conscious-ness the very essence of self-ness? And is it not possible for that self-ness to manifest itself as itself? To be Itself and not an instance-of-self?

***

But I see spirit as all pervasive, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent...in everything, all of spirit in everything from the smallest atom particle to the largest whole, can't be divided...

And yet I see we do the most horrific things to each other, willfully, or in weakness, or in ignorance, is the spirit as equally 'present' in that act? Does the God or the cosmos endorse such actrivity? Is it all OK? Is it all right?

Is there no measure of quality? is everything just quantity? Materiality?

***

So this is where I have issues with caring, forgiving etc. G-d doesn't have anything to care or forgive as there is no blame...G-d is...and the world is perfect as it is....or are we sayin there was some mistake made in creation...I don't think so.

I'm not with you here, Wil. I know this is not what you mean, but the first argument that springs to mind is:

Which brings me back to 30,000 children a day. Will no-one take responsibility for them? Or the drunk driver that runs down a child? Is no-one to blame?

I repeat, I don't think you're saying, or meaning, what my answer addresses, but I can't quite get you. I tend to view the world as 'potentially perfect' if only we plucked up enough courage and effort to practice just a little bit more, one more self-denial for the sake of someone else ... now I know we do ... but we really could put the world to rights if we all put our shoulders to the wheel, or all picked up our burden and, if our hearts are in the right place, it'll be no burden at all, but a grace to do ... because then when we do it, God accords, as it were, and joins in ... and letsa us know it (and thus God) ... whereas when we do the naughty struff, God drops out and leaves us to it ... nevertheless always there to try and snatch something from the wreckage ...

... self-denial then transcends self and opens onto an undreamt of freedom ... the beatitude of not counting the cost ... for the saint finds the joy of God, even in the darkest places ...

... Is this what you're aiming at?

As with any of my posts on the boards these are my thoughts, and I reserve the right to change them as I learn more about this world.

Go Wil!

And it is the most fantastic place!

There is an old saying, "love makes the world go round" and it was a real inspiration when I discovered that part of the phenomena of conception is that when the sperm penetrates the egg, it begins to spin! Corney, I know...

I shall leave you with Prospero:
"Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
Are melted into air, into thin air,
And like the baseless fabric of this vision
The cloud-capp’d towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,
And like this insubstantial pageant faded
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on; and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep."

Pray it is in Him/Her/It ... let's put our faith in something, but let's not stop seeking...

Thomas






Thomas

[flowperson]

Wonderful posts guys, but seriously Thomas, I believe that G-d has something intimately to do with spinning.

Your example of this action taking place at conception addresses it. G-d speaks from the whirlwind in Job. The spiral and gyre were among the most prominent and foremost symbols used in sacred and everyday decorative motifs in ancient cultures worldwide. One sees it in the movements of clouds and in the motions of the waters. The spiral is among the most ancient of symbols used in conjunction with the turning of seasons and the passages of life and death as exemplified by its use in the burial mound at Newgrange Ireland, which was central to the beliefs of the 9,ooo year old agricultural community there.

What do you make of these coincidental appearances of this symbolic form in such disparate and meaningful places and usages ? Any ideas ?

flow....

[taijasi]

The difficulty I perceive, already, is twofold:

One problem occurs when we insist on duality. Thomas, I do respect your choice to cling to it, but I disagree that this is the fundamental nature of things. As an esoteric Christian, or an esotericist of any background, I believe that we create more trouble than we solve by insisting on our separation or inferiority to God.

I will not disagree with the statement that God represents a Higher Order (or degree) of Perfection than Man. But both emerge from the same Ultimate Ground of Being, or Godhead. If you wish to say, ahhh, but GOD - in the Judaeo-Christian sense of that word, is a prior emanation of the Godhead, and thus, as this God's Creation, WE are inferior, then fine, you run with that. But now you're just splitting hairs. Besides, it's the Catholics that insist moreso on a hierarchy of being than Protestants to begin with! You can't have it both ways.

My approach to Liberal Christianity is not different than my approach to esotericism, or to esoteric Christianity. We each and every one of us feel and can acknowledge a separation from, or a lack of God ... in our lives. But we can also, each and every one of us, AFFIRM the Presence of God within us - once we get past the conditioning, as well as the limitations & barriers which life in the world just naturally places upon us.

Now on this latter point, I will stand FIRM, just as firmly as Mr. Schuon. It may well be that you do not wish to acknowledge this Divine Presence, or that you have been taught that it does not exist. It may be that in coming to understand humility, somewhere along the lines, you have decided - with the fundamentalist - that we are the "scum of the earth," and that our lowly, fallen state does not allow us to make such assertions. To this, I say hogwash.

Christ did not go around telling people they were ****. In fact, He told them JUST THE OPPOSITE. Get out from behind hangups with language and phraseology, and you will have to acknowledge this. Christ told us that if our Heavenly Father cares so much for the humble creatures of the Earth, who do not have to beg and grovel and belittle themselves to gain God's approval & favor ... then HOW MUCH MORE God must care for us, know our needs, and provide for them.

The difficulty, in point #1, to summarize ... is that we confuse humility with belittlement of self, and with the insistence - which I have seen time & again - that our worth is NOTHING without God. I understand the sentiment, I can even assert the kernel of truth at the heart of this idea, by referencing Christ's statement that "It is harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than for a camel to bend down and enter by that doorway yonder." But this does NOT mean that people, or the value of the individual, is nil. This must be recognized and acknowledged.

So what do we need God for? Well, gee, maybe to complete the very Journey He sent us on to begin with? Maybe to show, and to teach - and to reveal - more to us about our spiritual nature, which is not fundamentally different or other than His? If you insist on arguing this point, then might I gently suggest that you will remain better off as a Catholic, or as a Christian who prefers the old ways?

Might I say AGAIN, that whether one embraces openly the Mystic Path, or simply wants to open to a new (or RENEWED) understanding of Deity, that the FOCUS should be on Unity, on Togetherness, on Cooperation, and ultimately on Oneness of Purpose, which leads us closer and closer to Oneness of Being?

Christ was able to speak of duality, and did so often, because He KNEW that the masses of people, the common man (and woman), would not grasp such a simple (and truthful) statement as, At Heart, you and God are ONE. So He taught them the humility, the positivity of attitude, and the Goodwill toward others which was necessary, and which - if practiced - would lead them to a deepening understanding of their fundamental connectedness with each other, and with all beings. He worked with the mentality of the people as it existed, and did not ask them to see what they could not.

But when Christ instructed those who were prepared for such an understanding, He did not hesitate to tell them, in plain terms, that "He and God were ONE." And after instructing them in the subtleties and precise manner in which this was true, He also did not hesitate to remind them, sternly but gently, that to behold his very Presence among them (even bodily, though this was the outermost manifestation, of course) - WAS to "see" the Father. To literalized His statement is foolish. But to say that He meant He was LIKE the Father is equally foolish. He WAS the Father, even as I am the Father, and also as YOU are.

Again, one need not be a Mystic, or a philosopher, to grasp this. And it is no mind game, no sophistry, no wishful thinking. It IS, unfortunately, still beyond the grasp of a many a man who refuses to acknowledge the underlying Synthesis, Unity, or ONEness of all of Creation. How, I will put to you, can you and I, who cannot yet even begin to fathom the Mystery of Identity (and thus, of Oneness), say such a thing as, "There are DEGREES of Oneness!" (?)

You know, I don't know, but I find it difficult to put it into words any better. NOT because I sit here, day in and day out - or even regularly - and experience that Oneness in its deeper sense. No, I don't. I would like to, but I have known for some time that even if I were seeking the selfish reward of a personal Nirvana, I would still be a long way from attaining it. If my goal is proceed as I think I am truly meant to, according to God's Plan, then I will accept from early on ... that my goal is NOT to enter into a personal Nirvana, for ages upon ages, only to find myself emerging - by Law - in some far-distant cycle, to COMPLETE the Journey which I long ago began. And so I walk a different path.

I apologize for my typical cumbersome manner of expression, as I think I've already made my point. The assertion is not that, "We are already all God, and we don't need to do a thing." It is not, "Because our true and essential Self is One in Being with the very Self of God, no lesser-self-improvement is required." And this is what I feel you are struggling with, Thomas. The difficulty is in trying to link an ontology to an ethics, a simple metaphysical truth ... to a resultant, or concomitant ETHICS, and it won't work.

Of course it won't work, and that's my 2nd point. IF we choose, as Liberal Christians - or as people who are more comfortable with that label than conventional Christians - to assert the Universal Presence of God, and of the Christ Consciousness, then we are (or at least I am, in this case) simply saying that YES, even a ROCK has the Christ Potential. Some may not agree, but where they WILL most likely meet me face to face, heart to heart, and thought to thought, is with the assertion that each and every one of my Brothers upon this Planet (and some will extend that to all of Cosmos) - ALL OF THEM have the same potential to follow the spiritual Path, AND to attain the Goal that has been set before all of us.

Now there are folks who aren't fully comfortable saying, "I will become a Christ," but I would say that many who find an appeal in Liberal Christianity are at least comfortable with the notion, "I DO wish to become Christlike, and in THAT sense, yes - to become the VERY Christ Who showed Himself to Humanity 2000 years ago." Such a statement does not mean that one wishes to become Jesus of Nazareth, for at best, we might become LIKE him. But insomuch as Jesus unquestionably demonstrated to and for us, the LOVE of God in perfect action, I cannot fathom the reasoning of the person (Christian or otherwise) who would desire to similarly come to know, feel, understand, embrace, and demonstrate this same LOVE - OH, but EXCEPT that we must always "keep our place" and never actually let go of the distinction between self and the Divine.

So - a compromise. Some people may see the point you have made, and they may agree with the semantics - and on one level, that's all I feel it is. Or, they may be quite content to toss out vicarious atonement, and such notions as original sin, but they will shy away from the statement, "I am a Divine Being, a Son of God as was Christ Jesus ... and the Purpose of my life here is to manifest God's Plan, in my own being, in the world, and for the benefit of others around me." This is messy, but it comes close to capturing what I'm getting at. It does not work for some, but for others, it does. To a Catholic, perhaps there are difficulties. And that's why I think some people are just better off as Catholics, because that's what resonates more.

I haven't really been able to phrase my 2nd point, but it kind of boils down to a feeling that you're straw-man-ing Wil's point about our relationship with Deity. And this, I've already said. To assert, or affirm, our Oneness or Unity with God, with Christ, and with the Spirit that pervades all of manifestation (in its Higher Aspects), is NOT to even suggest that we don't have our work cut out for us, to use a popular expression. And Thomas, that's what I feel you're trying to make this sound like!

You make it sound like, if God already forgives us, then we are somehow justified in sin, or in transgressing the Law! That's absurd! The point is, there's no one sitting there saying, tsk task, nor is Santa Claus wearing a great big frown, or scowl, because we nicked the chewing gum in the grocery store. The child who does that, is facing the very real Presence of his own conscience. And for some, that conscience is a living Presence - it is the God within.

Let us allow a person to understand or interpret that situation as they will, but can we at least get away from the notion that God sits there day in and day out, just LOOKING for negative human behavior to disapprove of, so He can insist on a prayer for forgiveness, after which we will of course be required to say five Hail Marys and twelve Our Fathers?

I think that many a liberal Christian will be quite ready to abandon the Satan Claus, oops, I mean Santa Claus God, and turn, instead, to embrace the idea of a Being who is not limited to corporeal form - even to that which comes about through our very Creative imaginations!

I have said it, and I will say it again, the Aaronic Blessing, if we will study its words and meaning carefully, will tell us volumes about the true `Face' of the Lord our God - in whose image we were all Created. Moses Himself, did not even SEE or behold this God, for He was not at that time ready, or able. And so he saw - a burning bush!

We concretize, we literalize, and we have created a monster, a tyrant. That beast, who rules by terror and by fear, insists that we bow down, and he makes no apology for the insistence that we worship him!!!

That is not God, THAT is not God.

But IF we believe in Christ, and in Christ Jesus, and in the God of Love Whom and which He taught, then yes, I agree - certain things will gradually, eventually, though inevitably, follow. And this has to do with our actions, but unfortunately, it will also have to do with those who can recognize our belief, who can reason out what this will come to mean, and who will (only naturally) find a way to exploit it. With these latter types, I wish to have no dealing. And I only do, because it is my karma, this is the world, and here is where I find myself. If I could snap my fingers, and free all people from this tyranny, I would like to think ... that I would do so. But then, what would they learn? What would we gain?

Motive counts, but it does not excuse tyranny. Karma is inexorable, none of us can bypass responsibility. We can only pretend we don't see. Karma sees. And this has nothing to do with the misconception of a god that punishes, Karma-Nemesis. Such a being has no place in Christianity, or at least, not if Christianity makes itself out to be a religion of Love. Let it ALSO be a religion of responsibility, including a genuine concern for one's Brother, and an interest in his welfare. Perhaps it's time to stop worrying about the state of each other's "immortal soul" - and think more about the well-being of the mortal frame.

If we are drawn to the idea of a Liberal Christianity, might it not be the thought of the Christian Agape, the Love of Christ, liberally given, which matters most. Surely nothing could be more important.

Namaskar,

andrew

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by taijasi

My approach to Liberal Christianity is not different than my approach to esotericism, or to esoteric Christianity. We each and every one of us feel and can acknowledge a separation from, or a lack of God ... in our lives. But we can also, each and every one of us, AFFIRM the Presence of God within us - once we get past the conditioning, as well as the limitations & barriers which life in the world just naturally places upon us.

Well said. It is only natural and expected that we would cling to dualism. Language and identity depend on the illusion of dualism. But to "come out of the world" and eliminate our separation from God is the process of shedding this false identity and actually seeking to know ourselves.

The dualist vision is the sin nature. It's the self asserting itself and claiming 'knowledge of good and evil' and then sitting in judgment on itself (and thereby judging God as well). We were never cast out of the Garden of Eden. We never left it. The schism that inevitably comes of the corruption of reason - a suspicion against life that demands of life itself that it must have a purpose other than the simply joy of desiring to be - prevents us from seeing the Garden all around us.

"The kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."

By asking, seeking and knocking, we will find what we are looking for - and the great revelation is that it was never apart from us in the first place. The only judgment there will ever be is the one we pronounce on ourselves. For some, it is simply too scary to let go of the comforting carress of reason. But to those that awaken, that same comforting caress is seen for what it really is - the constriction of great python or the coils of a dragon.

Nietzsche's Three Metamorphoses

OF THREE metamorphoses of the spirit do I tell you: how the spirit becomes a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child.

Many heavy things are there for the spirit, the strong reverent spirit that would bear much: for the heavy and the heaviest longs its strength.

What is heavy? so asks the spirit that would bear much, and then kneels down like the camel, and wants to be well laden.

What is the heaviest thing, you heroes? asks the spirit that would bear much, that I may take it upon me and exult in my strength.

Is it not this: To humiliate oneself in order to mortify one's pride? To exhibit one's folly in order to mock at one's wisdom?

Or is it this: To desert our cause when it triumphs? To climb high mountains to tempt the tempter?

Or is it this: To feed on the acorns and grass of knowledge, and for the sake of truth to suffer hunger in one's soul?

Or is it this: To be sick and send away the comforters, and to make friends of the deaf, who never hear your requests?

Or is it this: To go into foul water when it is the water of truth, and not avoid cold frogs and hot toads?

Or is it this: To love those who despise us, and to give one's hand to the phantom who tries to frighten us?

All these heaviest things the spirit that would bear much takes upon itself: like the camel, that, when laden, hastens into the desert, so speeds the spirit into its desert.

But in the loneliest desert happens the second metamorphosis: here the spirit becomes a lion; he will seize his freedom and be master in his own wilderness.

Here he seeks his last master: he wants to fight him and his last God; for victory he will struggle with the great dragon.

Who is the great dragon which the spirit no longer wants to call Lord and God? "Thou-shalt," is the great dragon called. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will."

"Thou-shalt," lies in his path, sparkling with gold- a scale-covered beast; and on each scale glitters a golden "Thou-shalt!"

The values of a thousand years glitter on those scales, and thus speaks the mightiest of all dragons: "All values of all things- glitter on me.

All value has long been created, and I am all created value. Verily, there shall be no more 'I will' ." Thus speaks the dragon.

My brothers, why does the spirit need the lion? Why is the beast of burden, which renounces and is reverent, not enough?

To create new values- that, even the lion cannot accomplish: but to create for oneself freedom for new creating- that freedom the might of the lion can seize.

To create freedom for oneself, and give a sacred "No" even to duty: for that, my brothers, the lion is needed.

To assume the right to new values- that is the most terrifying assumption for a load-bearing and reverent spirit. To such a spirit it is preying, and the work of a beast of prey.

He once loved "Thou-shalt" as the most sacred: now is he forced to find illusion and arbitrariness even in the most sacred things, that freedom from his love may be his prey: the lion is needed for such prey.

But tell me, my brothers, what the child can do, which even the lion could not do? Why must the preying lion still become a child?

The child is innocence and forgetting, a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a sacred "Yes."

For the game of creation, my brothers, a sacred Yes is needed: the spirit now wills his own will; the world's outcast now conquers his own world.

Of three metamorphoses of the spirit I have told you: how the spirit became a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child.-

Thus Spoke Zarathustra!

Good night to all.

[earl]

The dilemma of the subtlety of ego/self of which all spiritual traditions warn; it's a hall of mirrors- to identify all with our selves, all we are seeing is our "selves." take care, earl

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by earl

The dilemma of the subtlety of ego/self of which all spiritual traditions warn; it's a hall of mirrors- to identify all with our selves, all we are seeing is our "selves." take care, earl

Your post brings something to light, Earl, for me in particular - and relevant to the post I made earlier this evening on this thread. As I was reading what I had written (while posting it), I came across a nice little surgence of ego, or pride - in my phraseology - and it made me wince. It is a good example of what you are calling to our attention, I think, and I was well aware. However, I let it stand, and posted anyway. I decided that it was better to show that foible, that vice, than to attempt to mask it.

None of us, save the Great Masters, is perfect. And that is why we do need religion, and at this stage, religions. Although we have the very Spark of God within us, and although our potential IS to become Gods, verily - for the Hebrew Scriptures tell us we shall, and Christ affirmed it - I do think it is helpful to keep a proper sense of perspective.

The difficulty sometimes enters in, when we affirm that this Divine Spark is within us - and then abscond, as it were, with the Divinity we have just affirmed! We mistake the reflection, in the mirror of the mind, for the larger Reality. Thus, the mind is the great slayer of the Real.

But what would we do? Remain mired in duality, and never even recognize, or realize, that God dwells within our hearts? Surely that is even worse. Ignorance is not bliss, and if we're not awfully careful, it's going to cost us the planet ... AGAIN. Well, maybe again, but planetocide is surely an unfortunate situation, whether as a precedent in this system or not.

So we have a very difficult path to walk. If we refuse to acknowledge the very Light, Love and Strength of our Divine Being, then we walk in ignorance and darkness, as many of those do who are in outer, temporal power - both politically speaking, and in terms of religion. This is not good.

Yet if we affirm our Divine Potential, we come dangerously close to pride, even blasphemy, as has been discussed on other threads of late. And this, typified in the myth of the fall of Lucifer, is also a very unfortunate thing. Lucifer's future may eventually bring Him through the Great Portal, and once again into the bosom of the Father, yet it is a path of untold suffering, and none of us desires to master our fate through so hard a lesson as His.

What then, can we do, to avoid the two extremes, and how do we tread that narrow, razor-edged path?

Gee, since that phrase has come to me, why not start with getting a copy of the original release of Razor's Edge, the movie based on the wonderful book by Somerset Maugham. The hero of that tale typifies for us just what it means to encounter, experience, even become at-one with the God within, yet retain humility, and so live to SERVE Humanity, which is to Serve God. And though he is just a character in a novel, I believe he represents something we CAN attain, for it is the purpose for our being here, it HAS been attained ahead of us (by dozens, even hundred of souls), and it IS our common Destiny.

Perhaps a word or two more, about our engagement with the Transcendent God, or our relationship with God ... which gets back to the topic of this thread. In answering the question, Who/what is God?, I feel that it would not be incorrect in stating that God is the Source of all Good.

One can leave off the last three words and still be correct, but then we are focusing upon a different Aspect of the threefold Deity. Even the 3rd Aspect, finds an overwhelmingly positive correspondence in our understanding of God's expression ... yet much of what we call "evil" will also come under this heading, and by extension, even those things (beings, conditions, actions, etc.) with which many a theologian has wrestled and lost much sleep over. So if asked, Who or What is God to you?, I should find that "Source of all Good" is a better - if more conditional - answer.

Then, it follows that the Good in us is not different than the Good which proceeds from God - indeed, they are identical, even the words themselves are similar, and can often enough be substituded one for the other. The Good in us proceeds from the Good in God. Let the theologian worry, and give himself headaches, over how God can also be evil. I find it easier to smile, and go to sleep.

But on the next day, I will remember the words of Anne Frank, and I wonder, when I posted this on another thread, how many recognized their source. Anne Frank, of course, was not a Christian, but she certainly believed in the God of Goodness. And that is why, in speaking of ideals - even though she had already seen such adversity and human cruelty as most of us cannot fathom (for on that scale, and in that manifestation, it has been cleansed from our planet for more than half a century) - Anne was able to say:

"I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart."

This, in short, is the Christ ... both within, and without. Christ was, and is, Goodness manifest, on every single level of our being - and God's. One might go on to say, that something truly Universal, even Cosmic, was present in Christ Jesus, and that this was the Cosmic Christ. But if we're not careful, we will miss the significance, or be tempted to make light of this statement. So it's easier to stick with, Christ showed us the perfect Love which God desires that we show one another.

In short, God represents to us the Perfection that is destined for all beings, first glimpsed and sensed while in the Human Kingdom ... yet not attained until we enter the Kindgdom of Souls (or of Heaven), as children, and humble ourselves before that Divine Potential, the Living Presence of the One.

In order to enter that Kingdom, which leads us to the very heart of God, we must pass through the gateway called Christ, in all the Mystic and symbolic meaning of this word ... yet in simplest terms, by attending to, unfolding and perfecting (or demonstrating) through action that perfect Love which is within us, as a Soul quality. Contend this point, and you are arguing with Anne Frank, this old soul, young of body, who voiced the Love and the Wisdom of God so poignantly.

Finally, it is as Humanity, the imperfect, materially manifest Creation of God ... that we are making this Journey. And if that is enough for some, then at least let us acknowledge our existence as one of God's many Creations - and in that sense, affirm our essential Goodness. For those who wish to probe further, then by all means, let us approach the allegory of the Fall, whereby God sent us forth, into the world, that we might experience the other fruits of His Creation, and by sampling - but not by oversamping - come to know and understand all that is meant by `Generation.'

I like that fact that there are dozens, maybe hundreds of different ways to see and/or make this last point, whle yet ALL of them embrace Humanity as a whole, and affirm our Goodness. This, then, is the idea of Divine Purpose, and the acknowledgment that each of us has such a thing, and that Humanity Itself was also created ... with FULL awareness of the present state of things, and also Divine Intent that THIS TOO, should come to pass. No mistake is this, no broken planet, or broken people are we. We are far from home, and our Journey is far from over, but as the expression goes, "Not all who wander are lost." The Prodigal can only return, if he has gone forth.

Love, Light and Strength of Purpose,

Andrew

[wil]

Namaste and thanx to all,

And Thomas, we so welcome your insights, and your respectful nature,

So many wonderful contemplations....where to start?

I want to touch on Andrew's comments regarding becoming The Christ, or Christed or Christlike....and the connection to I and the Father are One, which leads in a shortcut to Ye are G-ds...so we'll skip the discussion and enter it on another thread, Who/What is Jesus and Who/What is The Christ...

So back to G-d...

A creation story...

In the beginning there was a vibration....and the vibration had a sound...(but there were no ears to hear...we won't go there quite yet)...the sound could be described as a hum (or hmmmm) or aum, or om, or maybe even I am.

And the vibration created a bang...creating light and planets and universes...other stories go on from there...

I see G-d as the vibration, the energy behind all that is, enfusing completely all that is, not all thought, the allness of thought itself, not all matter, the allness of matter. And in any individual particle all of G-d/spirit may be found all connection may be had.

So if I can see the Christ in you, I can also see G-d in you, and G-d in everything. Yes including in the starving children, slavery, the crack whore, the dictator. The presence is there.

While I don't understand it. I do understand that I don't understand it. I do know that in my life, and in history, thousands of seemingly terrible things have happened which have yeilded huge results in growth to myself and/or consciousness. I do know my most embarrassiing moments, my biggest pitfalls become some of my favorite stories to tell after years have gone by.

Now do I believe that this incarnation is simply a spec in the eternity of life, yes. So do I believe that those that leave this life go on to another adventrue, yes. So should I be upset that those that are having what I percieve to be a terrible incarnation are blessed to have it end and move on, no. Now if I have the opportunity to make some changes in another's life, do I decide, 'no this is your lesson, and besides, you are going to see the Father...' No, I do what I can where I can. Whether it is prayer, activism, donations, spreading the word...I do what I can. But I still believe G-d is intimately involved in all that is.

But I don't believe G-d is calling the shots, out there forgiving, or blessing, no lightning bolts, plagues or parting of seas... I believe G-d is the essence of all that is and part and parcel of what put this all in motion, but not of any gender, not up there on any throwne pullling strings.

You and I, again in my opinion are created and creators. Of all that is, collectively and individually, we create our future, we create our thoughts, our environment, physically, emotionally and spiritually, it is our perceptions and our focus that brings everything into fruition....as we, I see it.

Now I completely understand how beings 1000-2000-3000 years ago would have different perceptions....how when everything you can see for miles around is flooded for months you feel the whole world is....how when you've toiled a whole season and grasshoppers take all your crops you may feel that the universe is not on your side...how perspectives of one as evil and another as good lead to creating spiritual/religious dogma around the same dualism you percieve in front of you.... I can see how those people at that time developed stories which followed previous stories, and how when I sacrificed to the story I created, I got results often enough...that that story persisted...I can totally understand that.

I can understand that at that time we would create a G-d in our image, it had been done before, and made sense...I just think it has lost its reason, we've grown out of our sunday school G-d, tis time to realize oneness, take on personal responsibility and quit blaming the seen and unseen...

these are my thoughts...and oh how I respect and look forward to hearing yours.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by earl

The dilemma of the subtlety of ego/self of which all spiritual traditions warn; it's a hall of mirrors- to identify all with our selves, all we are seeing is our "selves." take care, earl

The process of identify all with the self is co-extensive with letting go of the self. "Self" depends on an "other" for its existence. If there is no "other" then there is no "self."

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

The process of identify all with the self is co-extensive with letting go of the self. "Self" depends on an "other" for its existence. If there is no "other" then there is no "self."

I agree, and this might just be the best approach to an experience of whatever the Absolute is. So long as we use the process of perception, as long as we can "concieve" we might just be bypassing reality altogether.

Peace
Mark

[earl]

What is "self" & what is "Other" seems at the heart of all religions. Admittedly I'm far from having a clue regarding how to resolve that in actuality but wanted to highlight the subtle dangers of the "other side of the coin" of this sort of discussion. Perhaps Tariki will join this discussion to eloquently as he does elaborate from his perspective of Pure Land Buddhism. But even in a non-theisitic religion such as Buddhism which throughout most of its schools of thought essentially protrays the path as coming to an ever more deeply aware gnosis of "self" and relying upon "self" efforts to do so, there is the school of Pure Land which entirely relies in the "saving grace" of Other. I have seen Zen teachers discuss the subtlties of this cunundrum by acknowledging that their "self" path can inadvertently reinforce the very self they seek to see through and can see where a touch of the Pure Land can offset that. A panentheist who says all is in God but God is not constrained only to the created is in a sense warning follwers of that thinking that their path is indeed to find themselves "in God" but not necessarily to confuse themselves with thoughts they "are" God. Perhaps the makings of a lovely koan somewhere in this. have a good one, earl

[flowperson]

Oneness Is...all else is smoke and mirrors.

flow....

[earl]

Self/Other. I sat down to do my meditation. Have had a heavy heart lately. Typically do essentially vipassana/Zen kind of thing; definitely "self" power path. As I was breathing spontaneously found myself focused on the heart chakra and with the rounds of breathing spontaneously began mantra-like variation on the Prayer of the Heart. Had never intentionally done so before. turned into an "Other" power period which was right for the moment. Spirit blows where it will. Is it "self?" is it "Other?" Do "I" choose? It will blow and hopefully I'll hear it. earl

[RubySera_Martin]

originally posted by Wil in Post 8:

But I don't believe G-d is calling the shots, out there forgiving, or blessing, no lightning bolts, plagues or parting of seas... I believe G-d is the essence of all that is and part and parcel of what put this all in motion, but not of any gender, not up there on any throwne pullling strings.

This is a difficult one for me. When things go right in a more profound way than I could have dreamed or planned for, I give God the glory. I think there is no way I could have brought it to pass. However, if God gets the glory when things go right, then God also gets the blame when things go wrong. And "wrong" things have happened a great deal in my life. I know I am stronger and probably have insights I could not have learned in any other way.

QUESTION: Should it be necessary for humans to learn some of this stuff? For example, how to remake oneself from scratch?

It is the way this world works and I am not sure if there is any way around it. I know that the insights I gained can be helpful to myself and others, given such remaking is necessary. But if God calls all the shots, then this God is a mighty sadistic entity.

NOTE: To get around the awkward "he/she/it" many people today use words like God or Godself, and thereby cut out the need for pronouns altogether.

The God that speaks to my soul is the God I see in Nature. Something happened to me today that prompts me to view conservative Christianity with renewed distaste. I thought I had arranged to get my eyes checked. I have a condition that needs to be checked annually.

I guess the doctor felt called upon to "witness" to me about the faith. In an Ontarian context, this was totally unexpected and I would say uncalled for. I'm going to change doctors. I call it spiritual rape what he did. I wasn't sure that the examination was over so I stayed sitting in my chair. He sat in his chair which, incidentally, was on a lower level than my own, and this had psychological advantages for me.

He asked me what I believe. At this point I am not committed to any church or religious tradition and I told him that. I also told him that I know what I believe but I don't know what to call it. He kept insisting to know what I do believe. I did not know how to handle it. Eventually, he provided an opening where I could ask him what his religion is. So he gave a quick overview of how he was raised and where he is now.

Well, after hearing his story it seemed only fair that I now answer his questions to me. I wish I hadn't. Raising the topic was his choice, not mine, and he knew (I could tell he knew) that I did not want to be specific about my beliefs. Since he raised the topic I was probably not obligated to answer personal stuff I felt uncomfortable disclosing--so long as it had nothing to do with my eyes.

And religious belief obviously has very little to do with my eyes. My condition might impact my religious beliefs but in my case it doesn't. I was born this way and, with some minor accommodations, I can lead a normal life. There are other things that have had a far greater impact on my religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

As it turned out he's a Baptist. I will admit that stereotypes come in handy here. But I simply could not bring myself to just slap labels on a warm, living, breathing, friendly human being. He was very friendly. I've never had such a personable optometrist in my life. I went home and looked up his church and also the favourite author he tried to sell me. Both websites indicated a strong evangelical or even fundamentalist situation.

Needless to say, I am feeling very angry. The God he promotes does not speak to my soul. As I stated, God speaks to my soul through nature. That answer was not good enough for him. I like what you say, Wil, about God being the essence of all that is.

I've been talking with a Pagan quite a bit. He also believes God is everything and that everything is God. I don't quite see it that way but that's a lot closer to my spirituality than some wrathful God who needs to be worshipped and placated.

Maybe I'll leave it at this for now. I had no intention of mentioning this incident when I started writing. But it might be called a clash of Gods, or conceptions of God. I don't know if God exists as a separate entity. Nor do I know if I can be called a Christian. I do know that I feel more at home on this Liberal Christianity board than perhaps anywhere I have yet found in this world outside of academia.

It seems we're allowed to ask questions here, to challenge the old belief system. To explore new ways of being Christian better suited to today's world. Did I say I was going to sign off?? I guess that is what I needed to get me going

[flowperson]

Hi Ruby !

I just wanted to let you know how much that your ability to tell us stories about your moments in life where you learn more about the world around you has become especially meaningful to me. It is very hard for most of us to openly share personal insights like that, but the reality of the process is that it's still the best way to learn about the social truths of the world around us

There are, as I'm sure you well know, always people who wait to pounce on moments such as this to try and intrude upon what is spiritually yours alone, especially if they are fundamentalist in their beliefs. On another forum such people were referred to as "annoying Christians". But I try to be a little more tolerant of the type because they are only stating their commitment to their beliefs, and are trying to "bring" you along with them.

I'm also sure that your eye doctor simply thought that evangelizing you in the way that he did was perfectly acceptable, and chances are that this is a pattern of behavior with him. I know that when one has been subjected to personal abuse of any kind, it sensitizes them to any assault on one's personhood, perhaps even when the episode may have not been intended to be abusive. I know because I have the same set of problems.

So I handle it by not personalizing conversations that I have with others, including my spiritual beliefs, unless the other offers up some personal information also. Your Dr. did that, and I'm sure he has a different perception of what went on than you do. I think I'd at least give him another chance...that is if he's an otherwise ok doctor. But then I wasn't there and I'm sure your instinctual reaction is correct to your way of thinking and feeling.

Just my two cents worth.

peace....flow....