MOST PEOPLE ARE DEAD

I see it as meaning "Let them who are without hope bury them who are without hope."

I have no idea. Maybe you could explain it to me?

i'm dead

Berf: The deceased person lying in the casket was not 'without hope'; he was dead. The correct interpretation will come to you after sincere prayer and meditation.

Barbara: With sincere prayer and meditation the interpretation will be revealed to you.

Sarah: Your response makes me curious.

"The correct interpretation will come to you after sincere prayer and meditation."

Unlikely........

I guess each of us has our own thoughts on this...mine being there are those who are dead in Christ...those who do not believe. I, my self am alive in Christ and will follow Him and be with Him some day in glory.

I am alive!!!!

Thomas: I would give you a 20 if were possible. Karen F.: Your interpretation is a "Christian" interpretation meant to fit something very, very deep and universal into your limited "mind-view" of Jesus. I pity Christians who haven't the faintest clue as to the awesome eternal and universal teachings of Jesus. I had to leave "Christianity" to see the universal aspect of Jesus, the transcendental power of His teachings. As Jesus explained, there are those who have eyes to see and ears to hear but they are not those who have physical eyes and ears but see not and hear not. The "dead" in this case refers to those who are spiritually dead. They are not capable of hearing or seeing. They are the ones who crucified Jesus. In fact, this is what was meant by the great resurrection. The dead will rise up out of their sepulchers. But this does not mean the physically dead but the spiritually dead (virtually all mankind but a few). Remember that it was Jesus who referred to the "scribes" and "pharisees" as dead in coffins, "full of dead men's bones and of all uncleanness." These "scribes" and "pharisees" are our clergymen of today. Remember also that in the same place in the Bible Jesus says (speaking as God), I send unto you wise men and prophets and some of them shall ye kill and crucify..." Here He specifically states that it is an on-going process that was before Him and would continue after Him. Open your eyes and ears and hear and see for the first time. Rise up out of the dead.

I agree the passage refers to the spiritually dead. Also, I think it echoes the theme of sacrifice. Following the path of Jesus requires not only a good, moral soul, but also a strong one . Quote - Luke 9:59-62

Then He said to another, "Follow Me."
But he said, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father."
Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God."
And another also said, "Lord, I will follow You, but let me first go and bid them farewell who are at my house."
But Jesus said to him, "No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."

A great article, Thomas! If it wasn't so late I'd jump in. Maybe tomorrow...

I could never come close to saying it better than Donald did ...

Thomas,

I find two different instances when Jesus speaks words similar to what you cite (Luke 9:59 and Mathew 8:22), but there is no funeral procession in either case. I'm wondering if you have a translation I am unfamiliar with.

From Mathew;

Anoher desciple said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."

  It would have been very important for a son to see to the burial of his father, and what Jesus answers to a request for "time off" essentially, would quite possibly be perceived as expressing great urgency, more than some disdain for the gentleman's family and such. We may be looking at the remnants of a "saying", which would make his meaning clearer, but I think he is telling the disciple that; "Hey, it's not like the man is gonna just rot somewhere, surely he has respectful friends and family who will take care of him. We have really important work to do, and I'm the Messiah, remember?". Thus, the first 'dead', may also mean the man himself, in a way. Both are derived from the same Greek term, generally used in the sense we might speak of "the deceased".

I believe it is a strong possibility that what this man heard Jesus say to him, may not be what we now hear, outside the reality of the actual attempt by Jesus to "quicken" Israel. Which is to say awaken the Jews to who he was, and be accepted by an informed nation, for which, he knew he had a limited time. That he very much wanted to succeed in that, is evidenced when he agonizes in the garden at Gethsemane, over proceeding with what he did not want to happen. It's not just his life or torture that hangs in the balance, but the nature of the rest of human history.

That is not to say one is not rightly reading some darker inferences into the way Jesus chose to put this, but Jesus seems to have been a rather personable sort of fellow, and able to see past the sometimes suffocating facade adopted by many. The reaction of the people in general to his actual presence, was rather strong at this moment. And in fact, in the case in Mat., this is one of the preceding verses (8:18);

When Jesus saw the crowd around him, he gave orders to cross to the other side of the lake.

It seems odd to me that he would be thinking people were actually "spiritually dead" under such a circumstance, though of course, he might.

And yes, I think most people, at least now, are somewhat "dead".

Berf: Try it. If you are sincere you might be surprised.

Karen: Thank you for your comments. Meditate on His words and the real meaning will come to you.

Rosa: Can you explain?

Donald: You are not one of the dead. However you did not address all of the questions in my last paragraph.

Sarah: Thank you for your wise comments. You are surely on the right path.

Thomas, you need a talk show. I love the interplay with a difficult and touchy subject. The more people think about writing, the more they will disdain the waste of time of television.

Jerry Kays: If your thoughts echo those of Donald then you are surely not one of the dead.

John Knight: I was going from my memory, which may not be 100% accurate. But I believe I got the gist of the story correct.

John Knight: Do not be too caught up in the small details of this and other Biblical stories, to the point of missing the big picture. You are right that most of the world's people today are dead - completely dead. That is why the world is in the mess that it is in. The affairs of mankind are being conducted by dead people.

Sarah: Thank you for your kind words. Not only is television a waste of time, it is actually destructive. Have you ever wondered what is the real purpose for television? Not to titillate, not to amuse or entertain, but to enlighten, educate and to bring mankind together. TV is a potentially great medium for the advancement of mankind wasted on trivial pursuits.

Thomas,

No disrespect intended, but I don't care in the slightest what you consider small details or big pictures. The words of my Lord are all big to me.

John: Often times Jesus used simple words and stories to convey very important spiritual messages. He did this in order to get His point across to a simple people. My point was to stress that we should not get caught up in the medium and thereby miss the message. I hope I have not offended you.

Thomas,
Jesus said let the dead bury the dead when someone was asked by him to follow him and the man begged off to bury his father who was not yet physically dead. Jesus wanted this man he was speaking with to follow him to have a spiritual life, to 'live in God'
There is another place where he saw a byre(sp) and stopped to resurrect the boy who had physically died and gave him to his mother. When he resurrected the young girl, he told the crowd she was not dead but was only sleeping. Nearly everyone laughed at him and his words.
There is yet another scripture that relates that Jesus said that "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were 'alll living to Him'", meaning that these men, and others, are still alive to God who can bring back their physical life at any time He chooses.
When he told the parable of the rich man, he said his problem was that he was not rich toward God and when they 'demanded his soul' from him, his money would do him no good.
So to try to answer your questions my way: if someone does not recogize their spiritual need and then try to do something about it, they are dead.
I am not dead, many in the world are today just as in Jesus' day: dead in their trespasses and sins......they don't recognize the need to make changes, to seek God and really find Him, to recognize His part in our lives and very existance as a human race of people....
as far as what YOU mean, I am not sure exactly if you agree with what I have just stated as my understanding of Jesus' words, but the important thing is: are you, am I, alive to God?

Thomas,

"He did this in order to get His point across to a simple people."

That to me is itself a frightfully simplistic way of approaching the Word. It is, to me, far too "self" oriented, and by that I mean centered around things involving ideas, and images, and words. It is as though one were convinced that the key to a healthful body was to KNOW that exercise and good diet are important, when the fact is; Exercise is important, and eating good foods is important. What one thinks about these things does not make one's muscles and bones stronger, it is the actual DOING that works this miracle.

"My point was to stress that we should not get caught up in the medium and thereby miss the message."

I totally disagree, for reasons having to do with what I just spoke of. It is not by getting a person to THINK this or that "message" is important, that God can alter our fixation on "ourselves", which again is to say the, concept or idea based us. It is not that people don't THINK it is best to do this or that thing, it's that they do not DO them in the real world. What you are calling "the medium" IS the actual teaching of God, not just the "teachings", apart from the wisdom of the teacher and their "presentation" to the mind of the listener. He is not trying to convince the mind of various facts, but to alter the very functioning of the human whole.

To speak of the "medium" as if something which can be ignored without loss of potency and true dynamic effect on the person, is like saying that one need not exercise, but merely learn what exercise can do. It is in the dialog between God and his creation, that God can do things no man can summerize, or turn into a "message". He KNOWS the creature He is interacting with, and KNOWS the intricate workings and tendancies of our minds and "hearts". Not as a man "knows" such things, and can imagine about, but as the Craftsman who sees into the hidden world of the precise nature of the individual person He speaks to, IF they will listen as they listen to no man.

It is very difficult to follow your words of "logic" for me John, but I believe that you insist upon putting the cart in front of the horse ... cart being the work and horse being the thought.

The "message" is the thought in mind, the a-priori that precedes the work itself, the a-posteriori. The action precedes the reaction ... the thought of God precedes the thought of man because God precedes man ... the subjective esoteric transcendent precedes the objective exoteric mundane ... get the picture ? Agree or disagree ??

PS ... taken your way John, the people worshipped the man Jesus and still do, believing him more objectively important than his subjective ideas he attempted to instill in their minds ... they understood the lessor meaning of the parables ... a relatively few understood the greater meaning, the subjective spiritual essence, the "thought" as it applied everywhere, not JUST to Jesus ... this is the same "problem" that you seem to be caught up in ... IMnsHO.

Jerry,

Even if we were speaking of the writings of a novelist, or screen writer, I would not consider blocky encapsulations of what some person happens to think of the ideas and characters presented, as superior to actually reading the book or watching the film. Why on earth would I believe that the writings God intended for me to observe, can better be apprehended by farting around with such ideation and clumsy pontification? It's His message, and he is God. It's not your (or my) ideas of what God has to say that matter, we're just people.

John and Jerry: Thank you for your contributions.

John,

I just want you to know that I really do care about getting you to understand this concept of mine that "we" (you and I) "call" duality ... and I am actually losing sleep over it as I was 4 hours into my nights sleep here in MAST when I began thinking about our difference on this issue and coming up with another way to present it to you while it was fresh in my mind ... please take the time to attempt to follow me here and open your mind to the metaphoric possibility, just for this exercise, if nothing else ...

Let us envision a cross (something that I know you can do :-)) ... but NOT one with Jesus on it, just a plain unadorned one that we will use for "position" differentiations.

Let us first just draw only the horizontal line of those "arms" of said cross ... then put yourself say to the far "right" (or left, it really doesn't matter), and me, as disagreeing with you, on your left ... consider this a complete line, with each of us at opposition, polar-ized, you being right as in both position AND correct (in your thinking about me) ... I will then for the sake of this example be wrong based upon "your" interpretation of this very dualistic debate.

That would be a perfect example of human dualism, no argument from me about the example. Human polarization of you believing you are right and I am wrong, as OPPOSED TO the view from "my" side, that I am right and you are wrong ... I think that we can agree upon that (and this is NOT a "trick" example).(well, maybe it will be sort of one ?)(to be decided later).


Taking this linear line example a bit further by way of enlargement of dimension ... let us agree, for the sake of discussion, that because we both actually believe in the same God (just our ways of perceiving being different), that even further "away" from yourself, on "past" me on this imaginary horizontal line (not quite "yet" an actual cross because we have not introduced the vertical aspect yet) is an actual Atheist that insisted to you that there was NO God nor useful at all Book about Him ...

Now suddenly, you would see "that" person as your actual real opposite, a far better example of dualism between you and him ... you would agree on that, he would agree on that, and I would agree on that as a now "neutral" observer "between" you both.


For the purpose of introducing the actual cross now, let us consider that I am on the middle or center of said horizontal line ... you and the atheist being at the two ends even more opposed to each other than either of you are to neutral me who sees both of you as now dualists of the most serious nature of such.

Of course I also would then be a dualist to each of you also, but only 1/2 as seriously I would think as compared to your ideas about each other (because I actually "allow" both of you to have your differing views, I "dislike" neither of you) ...


Taking this to the "next" step of drawing in the vertical line to make this picture a real cross ... being as how I stand in the center of it all, lets draw the vertical line at my position ...

For the sake of this discussion then, (please play along), instead of thinking of God as at "your" end of the previous horizontal line and Satan at the other end with the atheist ... now we can transfer God to the very top of the vertical line, and Satan, if you will or must, at the bottom of said vertical line ... we now have a real cross with the "lines" designating two differing "dimensions" or realms ... (maybe even 4 or 5, depending upon what you use for reference, the lines or the points upon them).

The horizontal dimension of earth human, the physically objective real of dualistic right and wrongs (+/-) ...

AND ... the subjective "other" realm of spiritual right and wrong, the vertical line representation, God the perfect Good of ALL above, and the Devil of perfect Bad, representing the destruction of good, into the NOthing of being, the pure darkness of hell below ...as opposed to ... the desirable light and love of God above.

For the sake of dualism, let us consider these two lines "yet separate," in that they represent two "differing" realms, the manifested objective human of the earth world way of seeing "our" differences between each other dualistically ... AND, that of the spiritual realm between "those" opposites ... Two Dualisms, where their ends oppose each other on both lines ... actually 4 different views (NOT counting mine), Dual Dualisms !

BUT ... they are different, in the sense that they are of opposing "directions," in that one of them is vertical and the other is horizontal ... how to reconcile them ? How to make some connective meaning about it ALL ??


INtroduce the SPIRIT of IT ALL, the most neutral element, that IS THE AGENT of the God "above," right in the very neutral center of everything, attempting to bridge the Gaps and Voids of differences that would "otherwise" lead to conflict and destruction.

With this INtroduction of said Spirit as the 3rd member of Trinity ( bridging and thus transcending the void of dualism) we would then have, instead of dualsim (+/-) everywhere, we have Trinity (+=-) with Spirit (of God) BEING in the middle of it all as a neutral representative to each and every part and aspect of the whole.


IF we "still" want to look at this all dualistically, we will say that there are good people to one "side" on the horizontal line of humanity and bad people on the "other" side ... (and just possibly from their own valid perspectives, each side is convinced they are right and good based upon their own preferences, a draw or standoff in dualistic reality)(think also in politics between the right and the left, conservative and liberal) ...

Then also on the vertical line, is the same, but different, (higher vibration, more "powerful") realm of the spiritual relationship between God and Satan ...

BUT WAIT one would say ... God and Satan are NOT equal but opposites ... God is MOST (more) powerful than Satan ... right (as in "correct") ?!?

What say then we introduce (for the Christians) The Christ (in Spirit) as the dualistic difference between God and Satan ... right INbetween BOTH ... and even all else, considering that, would put such a CHRIST concept at the VERY CENTER of said cross ... equally BETWEEN dualistic SPIRITS and dualistic men ...

THUS ... we would see Christ (as Spirit, Jesus as man) being the bridge, or moderator, some might say "judge," the WAY to GOD ... through HIM one must pass to get to the FATHER ABOVE ... (this being the BRAND of Christianity)(preferable to me is the GENERIC where the Spiritual Being is JUST SPIRIT, that of God (who is also generic).



Take it all a step further from my perspective and the whole thing then becomes a complete circle ... where the dualists can stay dualists and take the "long" road, the "outer" line or path of that outer circumference to find God (or Satan, depending upon which direction they turn when they reach the "end of the line" that they "are/were" on ... either up or down respectively. This of course being the more objective 5 sensory view of outer macro creation of the universal nature ... that which most "dualists" think of as the "way ahead" ... and it is !!! (for dualists).


BUT, if and when they tire of THAT outer macro path of dualistic considerations between the extremes of conflicting bad and goods (that can, and will, last right on into eternity itself) ... they can always TURN "BACK" WITHIN, towards their actual MICRO source ... the good and great NEUTRAL SPIRIT (=) THAT REPRESENTS the TOTALITY of GOD !!! (by whatever "generic" name that suits them, even that of their own Soul).


I would hope that THIS long explanation could help dualists (them being natural and acceptable) to understand an "alternative" spiritual way of understanding, (preferable "only" in "my" eyes)(also natural and acceptable, just being trinity rather than duality) (+=-)>(+/-) AS FAR AS "ONLY I" am concerned ... to each their own of course.

UNCONDITIONAL LOVE ... OR ... strings attached ... ONLY the TRUTH will SET YOU FREE !!!

PEACE through (+=-) and CONFLICT through (+/-) .... j.


(and now, because I believe the above could better help anyone understand these differences ... I will make my own article of it for the record. Please feel free to comment there also, if interested).

PS ... hours later, and the transference to: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977340575 I am finally going back to see if I can get some more sleep. :-)

But, on second thought, I may need to more directly address your last comment John before I leave ...

I may be mistaken (of course), but I see you putting MORE emphasis upon the "blocky characters of the Book itself," than I do seeing you actually putting that attention on the "message spiritually intended" by God HimSelf ... it being your own actual interpretation of "that" message that MATTERS MOST ... that to be done best by your own spiritual INtuition, your own direct connection to the Holy Spirit of Truth ... IMnsHO.

nite nite ... (again)

Darn ... I had to get back up again to try to get this thread BACK on track, on the issue of DEAD ... meaning: DEAD IN SPIRIT ... being too objective and dualistic about everything ... NOT recognising the very SPIRIT of GOD withIN yourself, WHICH when partnered with, makes YOU ALIVE in spirit.

Jerry Kays: This is another quote from THE HIDDEN WORDS of Baha'u'llah,

O SON OF BEING! Thou art My lamp and My light is in thee. Get thou from it thy radiance and seek none other than Me. For I have created thee rich and have bountifully shed My favour upon thee.

and here's another one that I think is aprapos to your thinking as expressed above, at least in part. Am I right?

O SON OF SPIRIT! I created thee rich, why does thou bring thyself down to poverty? Noble I made thee, wherewith dost thou abase thyself? Out of the essence of knowledge I gave thee being, why seekest thou enlightenment from anyone beside Me? Out of the clay of love I molded thee, how does thou busy thyself with another? Turn thy sight unto thyself, that thou mayest find Me standing within thee, mighty, powerful and self-subsisting."

Jerry: I am in awe. That was too much all at once for my little mind to grasp. I will need to go over your inspired words several more times. Thank you so much.

Donald: Thank you for quoting those beautiful words.

Thanks Thomas ... the "message" of the comment does apply to all, but it was a small form of "revelation" to me, of how I might better "explain" via a form of logic, a mis-understanding between John and I of around two years now ... we are both extremely committed to God, but there has always remained this gap or void in the way of our cooperation. I am just trying to suggest the commonality of the "Spirit of" God available in the here and now.

Donald, yes, those words DO speak to both my heart and truth !!! The "voice" of the higher Self (Soul) INside, to the lower self ego being (we humans), who too often seeks OUTside towards others (authorities designated by humans)(or even books) for highest truths ... rather then withIN, the SOURCE of that voice of God.

Thanks you all ...

Jerry Kays: Yes, yes. Of course. All knowledge is in God, both of the past and future. One can tap that pool of knowledge by meditation (not sitting on a bed of needles but pondering a subject and thinking of God at the same time). It comes to one at "odd" times or in a "flash" or in a dream. With it one can learn the secrets of the universe. It is not a brain function but a mind function. One does not have to be educated or technically competent to comprehend and understand the most complex of technical subjects. It reveals itself in toto and with understanding.

Donald: Well put. Thank you.

Thomas,

I am reminded that ofttimes Jesus spoke in apparent simplistic stories that really were meaningless to most at the time. He did so to convey a message that would have been rejected totally by most of the listeners, but would, over the course of years, been assimilated and understood by certain persons with the ability to understand and accept ideas that had been heretofore anathema.

If one studies the teachings of Jesus in that manner, one may well understand that which seemed beyond reason at first reading.

"All knowledge is in God, both of the past and future. One can tap that pool of knowledge by meditation"

So one can imagine. One can imagine anything they like.

James: Yes, you are right. Jesus did in fact deliver His message in what seems simple terms. His message was geared to the needs and the capacities of the people of His time. I feel that God sent Jesus with an urgent message that was intended for that immediate time rather than for some future date. God's modus operandi was to sent Messengers every 500 or so years so the message God conveyed through Jesus was for the near term, knowing that He would have more to say later on when mankind was more developed and ready to hear and accept more. Just like in school the 1st grade teacher doesn't tell her kids everything they will ever need to know. They couldn't grasp it all at once. She leaves somethings for the 2nd, 3rd & 4th grade teachers to deliver when the young minds are ready for more. Does anything I say make any sense?

John and Dave: Thank you for your valuable contributions to this conversation.

Thomas: As to the fact that Jesus spoke in terms (of things) pertinent to His times and His audience, Chapter 16 of St. John, specifically states this... as, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear it now." There was a lot (evidently) that He knew but could not address because the people were not ready for it at the time. And He was, of course, speaking as an "official" spokesman for God.

Donald: Exactly. And Jesus went on to say, "Howbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth is come He will guide you into all truth". That is exactly why a child's education is divided into 12 grades. Not everything is taught in the 1st grade.

great article,yes I am

Diane: Thank you for reading my article. I surely hope you are not one of the dead.

Just as seeing that others are sick, does not mean one is well, or seeing that others are fat, does not mean one is thin; seeing that others are "dead" in some sense, does not mean one is "alive". This is self evident, but many fail to be cautious in ignoring it with regard to "spiritual" matters.

If, as I strongly suspect, being "spiritually dead", means one is self absorbed, convinced of one's own rightness and righteousness, then messing around with how one can see others wrongness, is still a form of "death". It is completely irrelevant what others are missing, by virtue of their self centered thinking, and thus, the dead bury the dead, to borrow the metaphor momentarily.

It is in the surrender of one's own sense of rightness (which is automatic, and not significant in any way), that one can hope to come upon a more befitting state of receptiveness to God's "voice" (which is NOT automatic in any sense, and always significant). When one imagines themselves not among the "simple minds", which one can imagine, then one is caught in their own imagination. One has "fallen for" the illusions of one's own making, and separated themselves from the realms of living things, which we call reality. One has reduced living human beings, which are vastly more complex and intelligent than ANYTHING a man can possibly generate in his imagination, to mere ideas and memories. And so, essentially "killed" them. We say 'dehumanized' them. One has transformed the living beings around them which God made, into little place holders in one's self generated conceptual reality, and thus become the "god" of a dead world, and denied the God of the living world.

Dear John, if that spiel was aimed at me, and knowing you as I do, of which you deny the possibility, it was ... and it shows just how far you will go to convince yourself, and hopefully on your part, others, of your own "vast" wisdom on such matters. :-)

This comment is to let you know that this content has reached at least ten comments, and as such has been removed from Comment Speedway! Congratulations, and check out Team Green!

All Men Are Dead.
…Until They Are Made Alive In Christ.

Even then we are made alive in Christ we must still die daily to self, to live in Christ.
The concept of life and death, flesh and spirit, can not or will not understood by those of the world, those alive in the flesh but dead in spirit.

Why or how would one expect the "Dead (in Spirit)" to understand these things?

Jn 3:12
I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

Kenneth: I appreciate your contribution to this conversation, however I must admit I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Could you put your comments in plain, common English?

Kenneth: Thanks for your thoughts. However, I would like to point out another view. And that is, one who holds onto Christ and rejects other messengers from God (say, Muhammad, for instance) is rejecting Christ. You have become focused on "Christ", on "the Cross", on the "blood" etc. You have missed the Essence of the Teachings of God through Jesus of Nazareth in favor of your own imaginings. Another later messenger of God (actually, the return of Christ foretold) said, "He who turns away from this beauty hath also turned away from the messengers of the past and showeth pride toward God from all eternity to all eternity." Wake up and smell the roses, ye who are dead.

Thank you Donald. It seems you were able to understand Kenneth's cryptic language. I couldn't.

Thomas,

It may have been a simplistic message for those of that time but I believe that its longer function was to express something in hidden terms like the Apocalypse, with persons needing to reach a certain level of understanding, far in the future, before acceptance was possible. I believe many of these things caused his listeners to simply shake their heads and wonder at the words. While God may have renewed, as you state, over the years, I am convinced that he also sewed the intrinsic and salient points of his message for the future, into the messages of the current day. In other words, I feel the message of Jesus was, to some extent, timeless.

James: God's message always consists of 2 ingredients - the material and the spiritual. The material part changes to meet the needs of the time, for example the eating of pork, permitted now but once forbidden for obviously practical reasons. The spiritual part, as you say, is timeless, and never changes, such as loving thy neighbor.

I understood Kenneth's message very well, it is typical of the very "dead," self claimed, and religious authority sanctified, "christian" that only sees things objectively (word literalism) from the ego perspective ... then contending that the spiritual and subjective view of the mystic, who is truly "alive" in Spirit, is supposedly the dead one compared to themselves being spiritually alive ... they have the cart before the horse and know NOT the difference. There are millions of them though, so they "vote" themselves the "winners" and the rest of us the "losers" ... their majority rules over the minority of 1, even that of God ... go figure.

PS ... on second thought, my comment was based upon Kenneth holding the "material" understanding of the "spiritual" ... NOT the Spiritual understanding of the Spirit ...

But in review, that cannot be decided for sure based just upon what he wrote because even I know Christ to be Spirit (that Spiritual aspect of Jesus) just as my own higher Self is the same as Christ for me ... so it depends on which way Kenneth really understands and believes it all ...

Come back Kenneth please, and set me straight ... I apologise in advance IF I misunderstood and mis-discerned (alright, judged) your position.

Kenneth and Jerry Kays: Perhaps you are both right from different slants on things. I think there is nothing wrong in loving the phenomenon that was Jesus, only in becoming myopic in that love and fixated on symbolic ramifications such that God is forgotten as the Father. Christians (those who call themselves that) and Jews and Muslims (all tag-alongs to clerical machinations) have allowed themselves to become slaves of others' imaginations. None of them are true to their own selves (as Shakespeare said) or to God. You, on the other hand, Jerry, have become so fixated on your "independence" as a "free agent" in the process that you discount the value of being guided by God and put too much trust in your unaided "reading" of your intuitive perceived awareness. I think you are making a mistake to some extent by allowing the excesses and obsolescence of the clerical institutions to discount the value of scriptural guidance (even though it is not without ambiguity and faults caused by historical obsolescence and intentional or unintentional manipulation.

Donald, and possibly Kenneth, my ONLY problem with the religious view (read that church if it better suits) is their OWNERSHIP CLAIMED to the CHRIST (or any other) SPIRIT as being FIRST, the LAST, or any other RATING as the ONLY ONE or ONLY WAY to God, worse yet, claiming that he IS God.

Those are the thoughts that have divided the world and often caused wars even ... right now I constantly hear from people that claim themselves to be "good" Christians, that claim the God/Allah of the Muslims to be a DIFFERENT God ... "because THEY (Muslims) are nowhere as "good" as "us" Christians" ... many, if not most of those ready to support Bush's desire to bomb Iran ... because they have allowed the people/pundits/priests/each other, to convince them that Muslims in general are out to take over the whole world ... I am not so sure it wouldn't be a vast improvement if they did.

PS ... that is NOT the ONLY thing ... it is the DUALISM primarily ... maybe the "ownership" of the "BEST BRAND" is a big part of the dualism ... the seeming by too many, dis-allowance of OTHER SPIRIT ... Especially the unnamed "generic" Spirit of God, the (=) in (+=-) ... which without we still have right/wrong dualism (+/-) ...

Jerry Kays: As usual you are right on the mark as far as I am concerned. I am still not sure that I understand your use of the term "dualism" in this regard but look forward to be elucidated by you on it. But especially on the first of your two above you are so in line with my own thinking.

It is not rejection to abstain from calling something sacred when one has observed no indication it is. Believe what you wish, but I am not going to believe people just cause they, or you, claim they speak for God. Lots of folks say lots of things, I am under no obligation to accept them, I'm a living man, not a robot.

A FULLY living man will use ALL of his senses, especially the 6th, in order to discern the highest truths to form his opinions and subsequent actions upon ... IMnsHO.

Jerry,

You can lump all the non-external senses together, and name that unrealistic conglomeration the "6th sense" if you wish, but I don't bother with such redundancy, and pay attention to what is actually being sensed. What one labels the various means of awareness makes no difference. If we called eyes 'timins' or 'boolips' or 'deeeners' , it would not change our eyes, or the images we receive from them. Attaching some faddish mystical term like '6th sense' to ones simplistic theory that one can see great truths by magical powers of inner vision, is only impressive to children, and perhaps the "spiritually dead". In reality, we all get to imagine anything we wish, and our yearning for this or that imagined thing to be "Truth", is a waste of time. Imaging some vast pool of consciousness one is harmonizing with, is a waste of time.

It is extremely unimpressive to me that some folks find it reasonable that God would need to update His Word, in order to please those who speak in "modern" language. I see absolutely nothing in "modern" ways of speaking, that surpasses the ancient texts in any significant way, and indeed, find people distinctly incapable of saying things that come anywhere near the depth and richness of the Book. It's rather obvious to me that many just generate a hyper-simplistic concept of what the Book is saying, and then claim to have mastered it, and be in need of further insight. Coincidentally, that "further insight" renders them divinely inspired. BFD, such self aggrandizing notions are as old as dirt, and don't require millennia to get folks used to. Parting with them does, apparently.

John, for people that do NOT yet know the difference, such as yourself, it often helps to point out that the 5 objective senses are OUTWARD sensing, useful for discovery of the Macro-cosmic physically manifested reality that MOST people relate to PRIMARILY ... (I'll bet money that I have said that before) ... but it is my contention that our more spiritual interconnections are to be made subjectively via our INtuition (by how many ever "numbers" one wants to break it up into) a 6th sense for the simplistic purpose of mentioning. That which differs from the outer 5 in that it seeks INward, into the Microcosmic source from which Creation came, where God still speaks to us all via the still small voice of Spirit ... believe it NOT if it makes you happier, that will only be your ego desire in ignorance.

As for the speaking from the books, I have found others that speak better and higher truths ... you should try some of them assuming you would even want a higher truth ... I suspect that you do NOT.

Jerry,

You are obviously quite ignorant of the Book. Saying you're not, is not at all impressive. And claiming you have found higher truths is just more empty boasting. (maybe you should capitalize "Higher", or "Truths", and see if that doesn't finally pay off  ; )

I guess at this point John, I could pull a Robin on you, and correctly say, from that perspective; YOU ARE RIGHT OF COURSE JOHN ... there, do you feel better ?

Congratulations on winning the Sleigh Me Caption Contest

i choose not leave an opinion on this article, it is too deep for my taste, here is a 10

This was a great article

Good Sir!

I perceive that thou art a prophet!

Keep preaching!

Keep us on our toes!

And never allow us to become spiritually complacent... like that spiritually complacent state, as your article both decries and calls us back from!

Father St. John

St, John: Thank you for your kind words. A prophet I am not; preaching I do not do. I am but a humble servant of God relaying His word to a troubled and straying world.