Discussion Topic: Who is Jesus to you?

I see Jesus as my personal Savior and my best friend. I believe he is the son of God and that he died on the cross for the sins of the world...and gave the gift of his life for everyone. All we must do is believe and accept His precious gift.

Sending you a ten.

To me he was a great rabbi.

The Messiah, the Christ.

he was a good man who lived over 2000 years ago and did some amazing things so the story goes. I feel I know him but I think of him as a friend and helper, as i would an old relative from my past. It is weird. I don't know if the mystical things are all accurate, I won't commit, but I do pray to God and belive in the Trinity, just i don't know...

I see Jesus as a great teacher.

I would have had a long comment here but Kevin basically said it all for me but so much better ... Amen Kevin !


I would say that Jesus was an ordinary man of above average intelligence with a hankering for truth and compassion for humanity ... thus he sought and found God the Father in the form of the Holy Spirit ... he then was Graced (baptised by "Fire")(Spirit) and knew himself to be then a spiritual son of God and that he preached and taught until he died ... after his death he spiritually "appeared" to his disciples and promised them the "Spirit of Truth" which amounts to the very same thing as the Holy Spirit, the Christ Spirit, or even that of your own Soul considered your Higher Self (that which transcends the lower self that is the ego) ...

Thus Christ is but the Spiritual designator of the man Jesus (like a sur name) for the purpose of religious remembrance ... and unfortunately, there has been way too much worship rather than attention to the teachings ... which were often in parables and the masses took them objectively and literally (fundamentally), the exoteric misunderstanding ... while the few intelligent and evolved enough to seek the higher truth in the meanings got the meat rather than the milk, the esoteric subjective meanings (the mystical) which was/is the essence ... the latter qualified to be apostles able to teach also, and the former being only qualified to continue as mere disciples ...

IMnsHO.

Jesus was a Manifestation of God, one of several that included Moses, Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Muhammad, Baha'u'llah among others. All are EQUAL.

Kevin, it's none of my business, but I would be interested in why you "left Christianity."

Dani, Jesus said that he was the son of God, but he also said that about us--that we are all children of God.

I see Jesus as a teacher. Someone who realized that God is inside all of us, thus we are all children of God. He was a superlative and brave man. His teachings have inspired thousands then and still do today.

I believe that Jesus was a teacher, a rabbi, and more importantly, a manifestation of (or prophet of ) God. By this I mean that if one were to think of God as the Sun, Jesus would be a perfect mirror in which the Sun's brilliance could be seen, but no the Sun itself. You and I are capable of becoming very bright reflectors of the Sun, but not the perfect mirror that Jesus and all the other manifestations of God were. They were chosen for that role.

All the stuff about virgin births, miracles, resurrection and the like were, in my opinion, allegorical and not straight fact. I suspect that people of Christ's time were well aware of this and understood the deep, meaningful use of mythos to convey sacred meaning. I think they knew that using allegorical myth was not the same as we see fiction, it was not to mislead or aggrandize, but rather to extrapolate deeper meanings. We have lost this understanding in the modern age through our arrogant dismissal of ancient myths as simplistic.

I think that the meaning of the term saviour is misapplied today. People think it means Christ will rescue them from a fate they otherwise deserve (to burn in hell), that all the actions in this drama are in Christ's hands. I disagree.

It is not by declaring oneself a believer in Christ that deliverance from eternal suffering is achieved. Rather it is by learning the lessons Jesus (and Abraham, and Moses, and Krishna, and Buddha, and Muhammad, and the Bab, and Baha'u'llah) came to teach that we develop and grow spiritually and prepare ourselves to be closer to God in this life and the next, and thus to know joy rather than suffering. In other words, all the actions in this drama are in our hands, not Christ's.

Wow! There are some very insightful comments here about Jesus. Personally, I feel a deep-rooted connection with Him and have ever since I was a child. This connection was reaffirmed when I had a near-death experience in 1998 and He came to me.

To me, Jesus was and still is a great teacher of truth and the true meaning of love. I see Him as my friend, my brother, father, etc. A beautiful soul that I can't help but love for His great compassion and understanding. He told me that the most important lesson we can learn in life is "unconditional love" and I try to practice that in my everyday life.

Kevin, Jerry, Carla, Mary M. et al: Anyone who sees Jesus as "a man of above average intelligence" is ignorant of history, has not really read the Bible account (particularly the words in red that Jesus spoke) or has grandiose illusions as his/her own worth. I do not call myself a Christian because that implies an exclusivity claimed by those who call themselves Christians that is simply not true, not according to what Jesus said, nor spiritually advanced. I think that those who think this way or think that we can "do it on our own" are still "behind the curve" in social evolution. It still amazes me (and saddens me) when I go to Christian church activities (say Bible Studies sessions) to be in fellowship with sincere seekers and see how shallow these very sincere people are in their understanding of what Jesus said. It is as if they have been pre-programmed (by clerical interpretation, even those who do not have a "clergy" in their minds but not in reality) to "translate" the meaning of the words blindly and without an attempt to comprehend them for themselves. It is so sad. What Jesus says in the Bible is today still applicable but limited in scope (as He, Himself, stated at the time).

Jesus, to me, was God incarnate but not as "Christians" think it. His message as presented (both orally and by living example) was not of his own "thinking" and device but at the express direction of the Godhead. He was rather like a smoky mirror put up to reflect the sun in the sky, too brilliant to be perceived directly. He was not an ordinary man, nor was He someone of genius Who woke up one morning and decided to personally give His view of God to man. He never said, "I think that..." or "It seems reasonable that such and such..." What's more, the entire picture of what He said and did is so "out of context" with what one can envision "a man of above average intelligence" doing and saying that it has impressed countless millions of people for many, many generations. And that, even when none of them could or can comprehend the full impact and meaning of what He was all about. They have and are still staying on the periphery of His Life and Teachings. Their depth of meaning is so deep, deep, deep, and yet still limited as He said they were.

Jesus was not a homo sapien but a step above our species in a still misunderstood kind of evolution that appears only to our kind. It is a "directed and singular" event that occurs every thousand years or so as a vehicle for the social "evolutional" process of man. This is true of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab, Baha'u'llah and many, many others throughout the history of man, both before and after all of these. For instance, for all we know, Hiawatha may have been one of these and perhaps Quetzalcoatl of the Aztecs.

Dani, welcome to the discussion ... it does take an open mind to understand some of this, just what our INtuitions are for. It is the folks that live in the historic past that have their minds closed to the now where INtuition always speaks to each of us from withIN, a very personal level of the highest truths available about matters of God. There is no better source of WISDOM, that being required to validate any kind of INTELLIGENCE which without true wisdom can well be very detrimental and destructive, Wisdom is about our place in the greater whole of God's universe powered by unconditional love ... that being rational truth of the highest possible order.

IMnsHO.

Donald, your "historic" idea of relative importance's and certain "dated" happenings such as the major "revelations" that you have mentioned where these very special people have came into the "knowing" of some people, show your propensity to structured belief systems that "religions" present as the institutions they are to dogmatise their required "followers" to exist ...

It is such religions that have become our "churches" (in your parlance) that have "programmed" the people to never trust their own INtuitions as much as the words and the books of certain individuals "authorized" by "them" ...

Sorry to tell you, but some of us are not as ignorant of history as you would claim, in fact we may well be far more aware of it than are you, and thus that gives us the balance and ability to see the truth of it, who made it, who wrote it, what they left out and why. Thus we are not locked into the orthodoxy of it as are those who have been institutionalized by the various "versions" ...

My own history is yet to be written, my participation in it is ongoing and far from culminated as yet ... that is the very same case for each of the "people" that you NOW hold in such high esteem, as it should be for them, but in LIMITING your views to what you think of them, to the exclusion of others, you may well be denying today's them, much as did the Pharisees of the time of Jesus. Thus you condemn new and present "revelation" ... which some who are "open" enough to Spirit do have ... even now.

They in their own time were NOT known for what they are today, it has only been through years of historic manipulation, gaining an audience of believers after the fact, that they have finally become sufficiently "historic" to have the fame that so impresses you and others of like mind.

I too have studied those folks, and rather than be overly impressed to the degree of submissive worshipping of them, I have read in their words their intentions that we also could be as them (their brothers and sisters), even greater, would we be but believe in the potential possibility, should we not unduly restrict ourselves to "lesser" thinking, as you Donald are doing in putting them on such a high pedestal ... and denying the higher potentials of such transcendence for your self and others by calling other "ignorant" ...

IMnsHO.

Carla: With all due respect to you for the good work you are doing in posting this information about the world's great religions, I humbly submit that to post a picture of someone labeling it as Jesus is about as disrespectful and blasphemous as can possibly be. Jesus was so much more than a mere imaginary image.

Thomas, the above comment IS your answer to Carla's question: "How do YOU SEE Jesus?"

Jerry: "See" has several meanings. I don't need a picture to believe. An image, especially one that is not that of Jesus detracts from His reality, His teachings, and the reason why God sent Him to earth. False images really hurt my soul.

I don't see Jesus as just another teacher. I see Jesus as profound. A high priest in the order of Mechizadec, but also my brother.

And Thomas, the fact that he came in the flesh IS an image of materiality. So it wouldn't be a false image.

Images as presented, are but the "Golden Calves" of idolization, they have really no bearing upon the esoteric truth ... one should look completely past such materialistic images in order to really "see" what is most important ... in the case of this article, such an image is of little to no importance other than to the most shallow fundamentalists who worship such ... and you Thomas are NOT one of "them" IMnsHO.

In the Book, Jesus does something many times, which no one else has ever done, save God. He was aware of the inner thoughts and feelings of people he came in contact with. He was a heart knower. Not as we imagine what another thinks or feels, but as God is aware of the actual thoughts and feelings within us. He could "move about" within the memory of people, as God can, without us having to draw up the specific memories in our awareness. He was the only human being that ever "shared" the mind of God, the awareness of God. That is indicative of the oneness of Christ and the Father.

If I said you touched me, when some part of your body came in contact with my body, I would not be implying that you touched all of me. You cannot touch all of me, but when you touch any part of me, you touched me. If you see any part of me, you see me. If you hear any sound I make, you heard me.

Those who saw Jesus, saw God. Those who heard him, heard God. Those who knew Jesus, knew God. Not the totality of God, of course, but nonetheless, they saw and heard and knew God. Jesus was as a portion of God, a part of the "body" and "mind" of God. When he was killed, a portion of God died, but similar to the way the whole of our body can regenerate damaged flesh, the whole of God can regenerate any portion of God. Similar to the way you can "kill" some of the living cells of my body, yet the whole of my body remain fully alive, Christ was "killed", but the whole of God remained fully "alive", and regenerated Christ.

Thomas: Thank you for sharing your views ("I humbly submit that to post a picture of someone labeling it as Jesus is about as disrespectful and blasphemous as can possibly be.) However, I really don't appreciate you referring to me as "disrespectful and blasphemous". You certainly have a way with words. Would it not have been more tactful and kinder to have given me the benefit of the doubt and say this: "Carla, I know you meant no disrespect, but it bothered me that you posted a picture and labeled it Jesus."

I posted that picture not with the intention of showing the historical Jesus but one of the representations that we see of this man that we have no actual picture of. I have now labeled it as such. I certainly had no intention to "hurt your soul."

Folks: For a picture of what Jesus looked like in actuality go to my images. I have posted a picture there of what Baha'u'llah, the Manifestation of God for our age, has said that Jesus looked like. It is meant only as a close approximation to Jesus in appearance.

The true Soul is above reproach, it is of God and will not be hurt by actions of men ... any hurt or loss is that experienced by one unaware of that Soul connection. IMnsHO.

Jerry Kays: You know that I highly respect you and your views. However, just as there may be some differences on our "takes," I knew when I wrote this that you would take it this way. But I am obligated to you and others to state that which I believe at the risk of seeming offensive. I do not mean to be offensive. Also, you may very well be more knowledgeable about history than me. My comments were meant in general and not directed toward you or anyone else in particular. Still, I would hope -- respecting your mental capacity and respecting it -- that you might at least pause to reflect on what I am proposing. I also think that to suggest that because I hold Jesus in such high esteem, I am wallowing in the wake of Church theology is a bit "overboard." My view of Jesus is totally different than that of the average Christian theologian and Church dogma. But in fact, I think that not only is my view more accurate and in accordance with the Biblical record (particularly the "red letters" part) but more respectful and more consistent with overall history as opposed to simple Biblical history.

But more important is that what I expressed is "my view" as Carla asked us to state. I don't expect it to be your view nor anyone else's. And I don't mean to imply that your view is any less valuable than mine, even though mine is based on substantiation by other such "Manifestations of God" (i.e. Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah). I don't ask you to accept these other "Manifestations" as manifestations. I merely suggest respectfully that you cogitate on it and reach your own very astute spiritual sense of the truth.

My entire philosophy of reality (including spiritual reality) is one of total dependency on the Will of God for everything from the material to the spiritual and from my perception of that reality.

Thomas: I think that Carla's posting of an artist's "picture" of what he/she conceived as Jesus was appropriate in line with the simple posting of an article about Jesus. But I also agree with you that too much emphasis has been placed on what Jesus looked like, as if it made any difference spiritually. I have frequently asked Christians, "What would you do if you found out that Jesus was not of virgin birth? Would that have anything at all to do with the value of His teachings and life?" I can also ask, "What would you think if Jesus turned out to have been a hunchback with an "Elephantized" face. Would that have any impact on the value of His message or life?"

Nevertheless, I posted a picture of what Jesus did in fact look like in life as described by another Manifestation of God (and hence with total access to the past and future) simply to convey to those who might be interested in this otherwise complete mystery.

Donald (and Thomas) I seem to be in a pissy mood today and I am sure it shows. I know we respect each others views and we respect our relationship to God above all, as it should be. Thus I would have not come on so strong with "my" truth (all such being relative to me) had you not placed my name as number two in order of those you seemed to be commenting to and calling ignorant. :-)

Any way, I do know that your view is NOT like the normal Christian view, but my whole emphasis has always been to allow for those few that may desire and feel qualified, to do as Jesus said we could; "be as he only greater even" meaning to me that we should not so limit ourselves ... that in no way means that we can easily do so, it just means never say never ...

So, as I said before, we can agree to disagree on certain things but we should yet speak our own truths if only because others may be reading ... Peace.

Carla: My wording was clumsy to be sure. I meant no disrespect to you personally. Western society is replete with "pictures" of Jesus - all different, and none authentic. Why is it that Christians feel such a need to have something tangible to worship? Muhammad forbade representations of the Messengers of God. They find them an abomination. I am not a Muslim, but I believe they are right. Please accept my sincerest apologies for any ill feelings I have caused.

Apology accepted, Thomas. With regard to your commment about Christians needing something tangible to worhsip, I would say that it seems to be a human tendency to want to see something that represents the divine--whether it is a picture, crucifix, statutue of Buddha or the Virgin Mary--humans just seem to want that visual connection. I don't think that they are necessarily worshipping that object or image, but what it represents. The statue of Mary isn't Mary. The crucifix is not really Jesus on the cross. The picture we see is not really Jesus but the creation of an artist using his or her imagination to depict something that is unknowable. Just as most humans want to picture God as a being rather than an invisible force or intelligence, it is a need for us to have something that we can identify with. That is my opinion anyway.

And my opinion is that when mankind uses any of those physical representations for God and or Spirit, they are in effect placing a wall between themselves and the real thing.

Having had no such "impressions" and only seeking truth whatever it was, I was granted that ... had I a preconceived notion of what it was or "looked" like, I doubt that it would have come to me ... IMnsHO.

PS ... as I was sitting here reading on gather about 10 minutes ago, I heard a bump and a small shake of the house it seemed like, two things came to mind, either a small earthquake somewhere or a bear stepping onto the deck outside my window here ... I immediately got up and turned off the inside light and turned on the outside lights ... sure enough it was the latter ... he checked things out and wondered off after a few minutes ... wouldn't ya know it, my camera batteries were too low to get a picture ... darn. Not related I know, but I just had to tell someone ... :-)

PS ... I guess it could have been Jesus though ... being as how we are not sure what he looks like ...

As a child, Jesus to me was the Holy Saviour who died to save the world from sin. As an adult who has left naivete for a healthy scepticism, I look to Jesus as a tragic figure who was misunderstood even by his closest friends. An enigma. Sent by his Father, yet the Son of Man. He performed miracles, but said we would do even greater things (we did, such as go to the moon, etc.) He proclaimed himself the Messiah, but asked others who they thought he was. He teachings contained paradoxical statements. 'I come not to bring Peace, but a sword', and 'Blessed are the Peacemakers'.

But at bottom, to me he still was the Messiah and who he said he was. And who he said he was can be rather confusing to me at times.

Messiah, prophet, rabbi, teacher, Lord, avatar, guide, example...

Jesus is the source of hope and faith and goodness and compassion and progress and humanity and rightness...

My faith, my spirituality, rests in and with Him.

Thanks for asking.

Great discussion.

Jerry Kays: I wonder how appropriate your apparent flippancy is with regard to such a significant subject. I also think that you are in danger of cutting your line of communications with "spiritual reality" when you try to bi-pass the SOURCE even pictorially. As soon as one lets pride step in the way, one's contact with the source tends to "dry up." At least that's how I see it.

Kevin F.: As I see it, there are the inconsistencies that you speak of. I attribute some of them to transcription errors of understanding and the almost universally overlooked depth to what Jesus was all about. As an example, "Before Abraham was, I am." He is saying here that He existed prior to Abraham even though He was supposedly "born of the virgin Mary." It makes no sense unless you realize that what He is talking about is His role as a spokesman for God and not as a human entity 'trodding the earth.' As I said above, to me Jesus (nor Muhammad nor Baha'u'llah) were human beings per se but a special element of creation specifically designed to act and move as human beings but with extraordinary powers that are not understandable to us (just as a dog has feet and teeth like us but cannot understand our nature). Their function was to nurture our understanding and growth as an exception form of life.

Jerry Kays: When you say, "when mankind uses any of those physical representations of God... they are putting a wall between..." I agree. I think, though, that this is where Baha'is part from traditional Christians. We do not equate Baha'u'llah (or Jesus for that matter) with God in the direct way that Christians do. We (like Muslims) think of Baha'u'llah and Muhammad (and Jesus as well) as emissaries of God, not God Himself. It is Their job to help us approach God more or less the way that you do... with our own bared soul. This is one of the more important lessons of Islam that falls on deaf ears to Christians. For instance, that is why Baha'u'llah has forbidden us to have pictures of Him (there are photos which are displayed on very rare special occasions). In fact, in GLEANINGS FROM THE WRITINGS OF BAHA'U'LLAH, He says, "Nay, forbid it, O my God, that I should have uttered such words as must of necessity imply the existence of any direct relationship between the Pen of Thy Revelation and the essence of all created things. Far, far are They Who are related to Thee above the conception of such relationship! All comparisons and likenesses fail to do justice to the Tree of Thy Revelation, and every way is barred to the comprehension of the Manifestation of Thy Self and the Day Spring of Thy Beauty."

Donald, your point is well made and well taken, and of course I can agree with you from your perspective and allow the very truth of what you say ... yet as I believe that every person is a unique individual where no two are alike, as applies also to "snow flakes", we must honour our God granted individuality at the very same time we realize our overall unity.

As I have found, that truth sets us each free to be me, meaning us. I have been told by Spirit that I am often too serious about all of this, and I know that I am, and it is just my nature ... but on occasion I attempt to "lighten up" as when I said maybe the bear was Christ ... it was NOT said in a mean or demeaning way (from my perspective anyway) but in a light hearted way ... the fact being that God and His Spirit are everywhere and in everything as far as I am concerned ... thus I honour that bear as much, probably more than I would many men. No disrespect to another's "views" (which I often think too serious also) about such things was intended ... though I do often intend such I must admit.

As for pride and humility ... those are like beauty, the eye of the beholder determines subjectively how they "see" such things.

I know my relationship to God with such surety and such comfort, that I can be myself, as I have already said, that is the beauty of such truths that I can freely express ... all I need do is keep everything I know in mind and keep my "priorities" properly arranged, I try hard to always do just that and I refuse to display false humility, guilt or pride, attempting to keep EVERYTHING just as REAL as I possibly can.

I have a relationship with the Spirit of God that is a "partnership" of trust, seeking an ever stronger relationship as it grows ... it is most definitely NOT one of fear or pressures to get everything "right" the first time, it is NOT "worshipful" either ... and IF that proves to be an error on my part, because I seek always the higher truths from my source, I am always confident that I will eventually, probably sooner rather than later, "get the word".

But to each their own, there is a time and a season, and everyone gets what's theirs in the proper sequence. Meanwhile, the Golden Rule actually rules ... what goes around comes around and as long as one believes and accepts that, they will learn automatically.

IMnsHO.

Jerry: Good thoughts you share. As long as you are sincere and loving, which I know you are, all will come to you. None of us yet can realize the awesomeness of our reality. I love that part where Baha'u'llah says (speaking as God), "Thou art My lamp and My light is in thee."

PS ... Donald, I also agree that Mohammed, Jesus, and Baha'u'llah (and others) were extremely exceptional beings ... but personally, I do not believe they were "sent" from God as much as they were "INspirited" from God, for their purposes ... all the while I believe that many others, probably each and all, COULD be so INspirited, IF it was their time and place AND TRUE DESIRE ... to set only certain individuals aside and then upon "pedestals of worship," only defeats the potentials of the others being realized because "they" are deemed of TOO LITTLE importance in comparison ... IMnsHO

Besides, it behooves each of us to just do our own part, as small and insignificant as those parts may seem to be, they all add together for the greater overall goal and effect ... we must each be "self responsible" or none of it will work to benefit either ourselves or the whole ... we each are necessary parts and pieces with our individually unique roles to play.

Jerry: Strange, but I see both of us putting in pieces of a grand puzzle to make a picture that is beautiful and revealing. What do you think the difference is between "'sent' from God" and "'INspirited' from God, for their purposes"? Is not this somewhat a semantic appearance of difference that is not real in fact? I also agree with you that "many others, probably each and all, COULD be so INspirited." Perhaps the problem is again that of the rational universe mandated wording trying to convey something that is not non-rationally plausible. Perhaps in the non-rational universe of the spirit world (which we simultaneously inhabit with the rational universe) "black" is "white" and "white" is "black." I wonder if we are not "dancing around" the "issue" as a result of trying to "translate" into "rational-world-ese" concepts that are sensible only in the non-rational universe. After all, God is the ultimate in the non-rational complexity of 'un-things.' Which reminds me that a scientist has just come up with the proposition that there are "un-particles." Maybe we are scientifically approaching the border-line separating the rational universe domain from the non-rational universe domain.

In the three years of his ministry Jesus became Christ. He demonstrated the way for humanity to become "sons/daughters" of the Creator. I think other religions use other names for the Christ but mean the same being. I think the coming of a Messiah in the flesh , which many religions teach is often taken as a dogma , like the "end of days."

Be it the "coming" in the flesh ... or ... the coming "of the Spirit" ... makes all the difference as to the ability to whether the average person will truly connect, or be content to relate to "dogma" that insists that we must "wait" with faith for the "messiah" ... rather than accept "Him" right NOW in Spirit ...

It is the ability to accept NOW that I try to suggest to those so "content" to just wait ... I do not feel the world has that luxury of enough time to wait out the ignorance that so affect us all here ... personally I am not at all that threatened by the potentially "dark" near future, but I assume that many will be, once they begin to realize what it portends for them without a Spiritual relationship OF TRUTH to comfort them.

PS ... Donald, the "puzzle" analogy is an excellent one. I make that in my book, in that each of us is a piece of the greater universal puzzle that is God, each unique and perfect in our own right and place, when we are fitting together with others as we all should/could be ...

Those of us that know this truth must be on the lookout for our spiritual neighbors and accept them into our relationships. Those we meet along the way may not be our intended immediate neighbor, but they may be associated with some who are, thus we should never reject anyone off hand, just try to appreciate the natural diversities, and envision what opposites can do with cooperation ... create via synergy, the opposite of conflicted destruction.

Jerry: Right on. As to the coming in the "flesh" vs "spirit," we have to keep remembering that God has the problem of dealing with the general population and it's sluggardly approach to knowledge. Some people are more receptive than others but some need a lot of symbolic representations to get the points. And to some extent we have to stay "with the flow" so to speak in order to be effective and helpful.

Donald, it is all about "balance" ... thus I myself, even though I know this, find it difficult to "hold myself back" and not further turn people off by my views, which are admittedly a bit "foreign" to so many.

Jerry: Oh wow! How well I know that.

I think it's wonderful that you two have become friends! I've enjoyed "eavesdropping" on your conversation, by the way. :-)

"In the three years of his ministry Jesus became Christ. He demonstrated the way for humanity to become "sons/daughters" of the Creator. I think other religions use other names for the Christ but mean the same being. I think the coming of a Messiah in the flesh , which many religions teach is often taken as a dogma , like the "end of days."

Clarke: I believe that Jesus grew more into spiritual awareness of the Christ principle and lived more and more in accord with that. I believe that we are already sons and daughters of God and we don't have to become this. We just need to awaken to the fact that we already are and start living accordingly.

I would agree about the coming of the messiah. I believe that the "second coming" is about mankind's awakening to our Christ nature. Besides, how could Jesus have a second coming when he told us that he would never leave us?

:-)

Carla G.: I am surprised at your pretty "fundamental" approach. In St. John chapter 16, Jesus specifically states that there are things He knows which He cannot reveal to people at that time because they were not ready to receive it. He specifically states, not that He personally will come back but that "He will come who will bring you all truth." I think that most people who call themselves Christians are afraid to consider the option that Jesus clearly states because it undermines "their sense of security" and threatens them with having to (at some time in the future) choose again between good and evil, between right and wrong. It is much more comfortable to believe that one has perceived the "truth"; therefore, one is free from worry about ever having to "go through that again." As if in crossing a swift moving stream on a procession of half submerged rocks, one never knows whether or not one of the rocks might turn out to be a moving turtle if disturbed or worse yet, an alligator with sharp teeth. Thus they hesitate and "remain on the bank" of the near side. You are willing to speculate on which rock might be firm and which one might not be, but you are unwilling to risk a fall or worse by actually moving across on the "rocks." For you to be where you are someone before you had to cross on those tenuous rocks and "trust in the Lord." Jesus also very emphatically and strongly states, "Wherefore behold. I send unto you prophets and wise men and scribes; and some of them ye shall (future tense) kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye (again future tense) scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city (Muhammad from Mecca to Medina and Baha'u'llah from Tehran to Bagdad and from there to Adrianople and from there to Akka, Israel). That upon you may come (future tense again) all the righteous blood shed upon the earth,...) He concludes by saying that you will not "see me henceforth,till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." (Matt 23, 27-39)

Carla, how specific can one get?

Wherefore behold. I send unto you prophets and wise men and scribes...

Yep, he said that alright . . . but he also said;

Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many.

And it turns out there are "alligators" in this world, with very sharp teeth indeed. Jim Jones, and David Koresh, and Charles Manson, to name but a few. You may have good reason to follow people whose words sound appealing, but I have good reason not to. My Lord told me several times that there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets. who would lead many astray. I have seen he was right.

He told me something quite different about his return;

Behold, I have told you before.
Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
For as lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

He's not coming back as a babe in swaddling, nor a humble preacher of the Book, but as something entirely different.
And every knee shall bow.

John, Jesus said, "I am with you always." Do you not believe that?

Donald, I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamental".

As for what Jesus was referring to when he said "He will come who will bring you all truth;" I believe that what Jesus was referring to was the "Spirit of Truth" or some would call it the "Holy Spirit". That Spirit is found within each of us. I believe in prophets and teachers and those enlightened ones who have come to us from different religions to share their wisdom. But I believe that we all have within us the greatest teacher if we would but listen.

Amen Carla !

John, you have a very conservative and negative view to be so fearful that "everyone" will be an agent of Satan, a false prophet, etc etc etc ... but feel free to "wait" until you see "all knees bent" ... it will probably take awhile ... but maybe if you hold your breath the "vision" may ("seem" to) appear sooner ... :-)

Carla,

God is not limited as we, to being in one place at a time. Jesus was a flesh and blood manifestation of God, and not only will he return in another manifestation of God, called the "Son of man", who will be King of Kings; He was yet in heaven, in that form, as he walked among us on earth. I know this is confusing, but the confusion comes from not grasping the lack of "normal" constraints we as humans live within, which God simply does not. Consider this statement to a rabbi, and it seems friend of the family of Jesus, after Nicodemus tells him he knows he is a "teacher come from God", because no one could possibly do the miracles Jesus did if he were not; but he is confused about just what Jesus is in the larger picture of things;

If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

That is Jesus Christ, speaking of the Son of man being in heaven at that very moment . . . This is not a "normal" being. This is God. He can be with us always, in various ways, most notably the "Word" of God, which is another of his "roles", but also the Holy Spirit, which is also a "portion" of the incredibly "abnormal" Entity, that has no limits we can even conceive of. His self given name is "I am that I am", which pretty much means; I am whatever I choose to be.

If He wants to be a bear on Jerry's porch, there He is.    ; )

John said in part:
"" ... speaking of the Son of man being in heaven at that very moment . . . This is not a "normal" being"" ... and ... "" ... but also the Holy Spirit, which is also a "portion" of the incredibly "abnormal" Entity, that has no limits we can even conceive of. His self given name is "I am that I am", which pretty much means; I am whatever I choose to be. If He wants to be a bear on Jerry's porch, there He is. ; ) John Knight, Jun 17, 2008, 2:28am EDT ""

Which basically means (to me anyway) that the essence is of the Spirit not the physicality ...

The physicality is a singular entity ... while the Spirit represents the greater "pool" of a "classification" ... such as "Christ", "Holy", "Truth", even "God" of which each of the others are a part of. All of "Those" are but (=)s in the BET of (+=-) where the Monistic Unity of God would be the ( ), while the Trinity would be the +=-, ALL together (+=-).

(+) Father God
(=) Spirit
(-) Physicality


PS ... daylight inspection today showed bear paw prints and slobber on at least four house windows ... the last one being 2 windows over (8 ft away) from the one I sit next to and facing while on my computer here. The shaking and noises were first the standing and leaning against the window, and the second when he dropped back down onto all four feet on the deck ... as I was switching lights he was passing by me just outside of the wall I was sitting at ... I have been trying for hours to upload a picture of the paw/claw prints on my window today but gather problems persist in a long delay.

Jerry,

Well, I really don't see the value (excuse the pun), in reducing one's understanding of the universe to such a crude linguistic device, but if I had to, mine would look more like this, I guess;

(   G       (Spiritual+Perceptual+Material+Conceptual+?)     . . . ; )


(And, um, just how big a critter are you dealing with? I mean, you figure you're being scoped by a scavenger that's lost it's fear of humans through contact, or . . . one that's just plain lost it's fear of eveything ?  ; )

Jesus's reminder to LOVE THE OTHER AS GOD[God/Relative/Elder/Inner-Me & Outer-Me & Enemy etc] is the teaching I came to master in this incarnation.
So in that life, Jesus the Christed [Crystal Mind] One is my main teacher. I have many other teachers in all religious and spiritual traditions (again following Jesus' reminder to Love the Other As God)....

Btw - the "virgin birth" model is generally assigned to major avatars such as The Great Peacemaker (Deganawida), Jesus, and others. There are a great many miraculous births - it's the way things are in reincarnational systems such as the Karmapas (Kagyu lineage, Tibetan Buddhism) and various Hindu renincarnations (the Sai Babas, among others)...........
It's also worth looking at miraculous deathing stories.........Many of the Catholic and Buddhist and Hindu saints are associated with signs and miracles at the times of their deaths or burials or funereal pyres.

The world is not what we westerners have been trained to think it is..........It's actually FULL of miracles.

Btw Jesus was not the only one to be able to bring the dead to life. That was common practice among certain ancient shamanic healing lineages, and also among some of the Egyptian and other high initiate traditions. And the "death/rebirth" initiation which Jesus underwent was standard (though not in the form of crucifixion) for some Egyptian initiations.

We happen to have lost a lot of our higher spiritual practices in the west during the outworking of this planetary hell cycle we're finishing in 2012 or thereabouts. But that's ok - we'll find our way.

I've deeply enjoyed the teachings given me by Jesus. I find him true-hearted.

Carla,
"I believe that Jesus grew more into spiritual awareness of the Christ principle and lived more and more in accord with that. I believe that we are already sons and daughters of God and we don't have to become this. We just need to awaken to the fact that we already are and start living accordingly. "

If you mean human beings have a "spark of the Creator" and the potential for evolving to become "greater than the angels," I think the world religions agree and profess this is the purpose for which Humanity was created. Jesus demonstrated in life and accomplished the way of completion through Transfiguration and Resurrection. We have differing accounts of this in the four Gospels and other texts, which indicate some of his followers witnessed this and were even taken by the risen Christ into a higher world, the "Kingdom of Heaven" that has always existed - as real as this world but of a higher energy or vibration. Jesus did miracles because he could work with these higher energies and also perfected and transmuted his body tbrough them. All the world religions describe teachers creating or having higher bodies besides the physical and teachings that resemble the Christian mystery. The Egyptian, for example, includes most of the Gospel story of Jesus' life.

"I would agree about the coming of the messiah. I believe that the "second coming" is about mankind's awakening to our Christ nature. Besides, how could Jesus have a second coming when he told us that he would never leave us?"

The principle is "Many are called but few are chosen." All are called . Some are what you call "growing in spiritual awareness" and perhaps working "to be in this world but not of it." But how many have got very far ? One in a million or a billion? Will Humanity evolve to " completion" ? Was it created for that purpose? We as individuals are certainly incomplete but we can learn and grow. We don't know what real "completion" would be . But some have shown it is possible by their example. They did things that seem miracles and they are also real and present to many as spiritual beings.

As far as "Messiahs" are concerned, there are many teachings about them. Jesus was seen with Hebrew prophets. He speaks of more teachers to come, some Messengers. I think it makes sense to think we don't know when some true Messengers may appear. Perhaps when there is a need they will be sent. That seems to be the pattern throughout history. It may be repeated for many thousands of years. Everything changes. Sometimes there are rapid changes, but in terms of thousands of years, they may be relatively just another period in time or history.

We face the conditions we are in today. That is our business. Trial and error, questions seeking answers that lead to more questions. There may be manuals that are useful and some experienced teachers . But nobody can do another's work. Some learn well some don't .

John, the "basis" of my formulae (equation) (+=-) is that compared to present dualistic understandings and practises of (+/-) where the "better side" sees itself as always in conflict with, and wanting to either convert or destroy, the "other side" ... always leading to divisiveness and strife because of fear and judgementalism ...

With the "addition of" our common Spirit of God (=) the former void (/) of differentiation is "bridged" with unconditional love and all differences, which are but God given natural diversity anyway, are "healed" and peace can reign with creative synergy rather than the former destructions.

(+=-)>(+/-) and/or (+/-)<(+=-)


[about the bruin, he is just a young one, probably kicked out of the den because his momma has new cubs ... he was just passing through I suspect ... lots of them around ... and most are harmless, just looking for garbage, pet food, bird seed, or whatever, probably trained by their moms and each passes it on .... slim pickings here, but a mile or so away are more places to check out ... if they get to be too much of a pest the game department comes and traps them then relocates them into someone else's back yard. (just kidding, usually many miles away from humans) :-) The evidentiary "image" is now in my file.]

John, I very well know that God is not limited to "one place at a time." When one sees God as spirit, energy or a force, that is quite natural.

I would also say that the essence of God was in Jesus but also is in all people as well. I hate to say, "spark" as Clarke mentioned, because that to me denotes only a tiny bit. When I think of the divine force that is our life, I see that essence infused within every cell of us as invisible substance.

Most never realize their divine nature or essence and do not actualize it, as Clarke mentioned. Jesus, in my belief, was an evolved soul who had realized his oneness with God and with all beings and lived at the highest level of spiritual awareness.

Clarke, I do believe that we agree on most everything. Perhaps we just explain it differently. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate your views.

Jerry, don't take any food to bed. You may have a visitor.

Carla,
What a nice comment. Maybe I can still learn.

Carla,

"I very well know that God is not limited to "one place at a time."

Then why did you ask me this? ;

"Jesus said, "I am with you always." Do you not believe that?"


It REALLY seems to me, that the bulk of what many here are doing is claiming that the Book is not reflecting the actual nature of Christ, and God, and the universe as a whole, and justifying that stance by oversimplifying what the Book speaks of all these things. And when that begins to "wear thin", in the face of what the Book actually says, the "topic" is switched to what the speaker figures "most Christians" believe, again, in an oversimplified "nutshell" sort of depiction. There is, of course, no way to determine what "most Christians" think about anything, and no value I can discern in trying.

Human beings face a challenging reality, regardless of what conceptual/rhetorical formulas or summations one might reduce that reality too. Whether one defines some division between "Spiritual" and "material", self and any "them", God and Jesus Christ, or any other conceptual things, the reality we all face remains incredibly challenging. Saying that "if only others would see reality as I define it, then everything would resolve itself to a simple, peaceful, paradisaical cake walk", is just not particularly useful, I don't think. Of course if one imagines everyone agreeing that we all ought to respect each other, and quit being self oriented, and seek higher wisdom . . . one will then be in a position to imagine that this or that group or stereotypical cartoon "type" of person is the big problem. But how is that any different than what the most dogmatic "church" folks do? How is that any different than the us and them "cartoonification" of their fellows some engage in, which any thinking person can see is dehumanizing and shallow?

Is this not just more of the same old distancing, and desensitization to the actual human beings around us, who are not really like the hyper-simplified characters we can generate in our minds, but actually human beings, like us, facing an incredibly challenging reality which "we" cannot experience realistically, and cannot rightly presume to understand or judge? Yes, we can judge between various ideas of others, we can construct relatively superior "worldviews" than the ones we attribute to the imaginary people in our "worldview", but this is not compassion. This is not fellowship. This is not revolutionary, or evolutionary. It's self centered futzing around with self generated phantom realities. And when you throw someone like Christ, or God, into that mix . . . you are obviously messing with idols, cause you can't have a realistic idea of God. God, if real, is not something we can hold in our mind. We, the whole of us, mind, body, and spirit, are something God holds in his. If not, why do you call it God?

John, I asked if you believed that Jesus was always with us because you had said that he was coming back. My question was: How can he come back if he never left?

As for the rest of what you said, well, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. You seem to be criticizing the discussion that we are having (and that you are taking part in as well) and trying to make us feel that we are wrong. That seems to be what you are always doing, John, trying to make others wrong. Why is that John?

It seems to me (the little people in my mind) that John completely rebels against the idea of a spiritual inter-connective mind that allows us to each actually experience each others mind to the degree that we can associate MORE THAN the obvious simple and literal objectivity of mere word meanings, which he would argue that those words are as "good as it gets" in such formats as Gather ... in other words, we should NEVER assume that we know what another is thinking because we will more than likely be WRONG than right. That our disconnected personal imaginations will most always only bring falseness and trouble to our thoughts, be they about ourselves or others, especially the latter. (Satan influence ?)

That we should never look for a simplified understandable "common denominator" to gather around (such as the spirit of God), that we should just treat each other all the SAME with complete respect and no one should ever attempt to change another's mind ... especially those who are committed to "The Book" because they also are completely "justified" in everything that they say and do ... and of course we can never "generalize", even though millions seem much the same, because we just have no way at all of really knowing just what they think and act like ... (even though we have experienced it for 2,000 years now).

In a nutshell, we should all cease and desist, and follow exactly John's guidance for our future social interactions ... just do as John says, (surely NOT, I hope, what he does, which is offer words with meanings the opposite of ours)(and I wonder how "that" really differs effectively from what we are accused of ?)

So, to you John, directly here in words, please offer your agreement, or rebuttal, to the above, so that we can know, as best that we can, based upon how you would insure just that, what you think on these issues ... please ...

Carla,

When I say he will return, I mean there will be a person standing there, whom you can see and hear, and perhaps have a conversation with. You know, like the last time he came, the time recorded in that Book. That fellow named Jesus. The guy you asked us what we thought about.

Well, it turns out, Jesus was a real firm believer in the God of Abraham. No doubt about it, that was what he definitely saw as the whole foundation of "Spiritual reality", and that Book, is what he preached, and quoted, and referred to over and over. If that God is not real, then Jesus was way off base. If you think he was way off base . . . what the hell difference does it make what he said about returning? Or never leaving, or anything else? Without that God, none of what Jesus or anybody else in that Book said or did, makes any sense at all.

Jerry,

" . . . John completely rebels against the idea of a spiritual inter-connective mind that allows us to each actually experience each others mind to the degree that we can associate MORE THAN the obvious simple and literal objectivity of mere word meanings . . . "

Rebels against? What's there to rebel against? Just look at this thread, one can see as plain as day that you "connected ones", routinely fail to connect. You can call it rebellion, but there's just a lot of speculation and vague rhetoric in evidence. If someone came on and said they believed in mind control, but couldn't seem to control anyone's mind; would it be "rebellion" to doubt them? If they said they believed they could travel through time, but couldn't accurately predict anything, or provide any "insights" about the past that could be verified; would I be rebelling if I failed to take them seriously? Why can't I just be unconvinced?

Why must I be cast into your dualistic world of acceptance or rebellion? What happened to open-mindedness? What happened to making up one's own mind? What happened to not imposing one's views on another, by claiming theirs is the only way and those who don't agree are wrong headed troublemakers?

This is "church" stuff you're pulling, not rational debate.

Jerry: I suggest you (we) don't be too judgmental about John. He has one view that seems to be "out of sync" with you or I. But he has great qualities that may help us to focus in on the truth from a different perspective and come up with something that neither you and I nor he has seen. Also, we have to remember that people are not rubber stamps of each other. Some people need more time (or generations) to become ready to probe deeper into that vast well known as "the truth."

I know, the "gap" is just too wide it seems between us, it would take the Spirit (=) to trinitize the duality (+/-) into (+=-) ... the Spirit I use and John seems to reject ... I do not know how it could be otherwise ...

When you call me a dualist John, it must be from the viewpoint of a dualist that has yet to recognise the trinity ... otherwise said trinity would fill you in with the truth of the matter ...

I am NOT being "judgemental" as much as I am floating out possibilities of the way of thinking, presenting them for issue by issue discussion in the search for the different truths with the hope of peaceful resolution of conflicting differences ... the resolution that spirit (=) offers ... Peace.

PS ... John, you say in part: "If someone came on and said they believed in mind control, but couldn't seem to control any-one's mind; would it be "rebellion" to doubt them? If they said they believed they could travel through time, but couldn't accurately predict anything, or provide any "insights" about the past that could be verified; would I be rebelling if I failed to take them seriously? Why can't I just be unconvinced?"

You can be unconvinced, you ARE unconvinced. I do not believe that I have ever suggested any of those things you complain about, so you are putting up a smoke screen here as far as I see it.

I am only attempting to get you to admit, and or understand yourself, as to just where you are coming from on the relativity of potential accuracy and any supposed harm about peoples believing that they can have at least SOME INtuitive INsight into the minds of others that they relate to ... even over the electronic distances of Gather intercourse.

I am only looking for some common ground basis of a beginning agreement to build upon ... you on the other hand seem to argue against and out of hand reject all views different than your own ... IMnsHO.

Jerry,

I am a man of reason. Reason requires that the mind be discriminating in what it accepts as true. It is not enough that some possibility is pleasant to treat as if true, that it generates a pleasing sensation of whatever sort, to imagine. One can engage in such things, but that is not reason.

I do not "reject" some form of "ESP" style interconnection between minds, I just don't build a "worldview" around that possibility. If it is true, I see no reason to believe it is any more reliable, or significant than any of the other ways we "connect". The mere fact, if true, that one can get some sort of impression from another mind, does not render all such impressions valid. Obviously, if the mind (s) we are getting the impression from is misguided, so will the impressions we could pick up on. I'm not rejecting the possibility of getting such extra sensory impressions, but rather, the notion that such things constitute Divine messages from God.

What do you suppose happened in Germany during the great darkness which enveloped that society? People THOUGHT they were involved in the great dawning of a new age, a new civilization, filled with peace and prosperity. Mr. Hitler told them of their advanced nature, their common destiny to rise above the mundane level of past generations, their special gifts which they could bring to the world, if only they believed . . . if only they trusted their feelings of becoming something more . . . if only they placed their faith in a "collective consciousness" that transcended the limitations of doubt and skepticism . . . and they bit.

What ifs are a good thing, but not when we accept them as truths. When we start believing our own fantasy "reality", we start ignoring our "common ground", where the earth revolves slowly beneath the sun, and the "rules" are embedded in the very fabric of reality itself, and things are not always what they seem to us. Where evidence must be carefully considered, to determine what is so.

To abandon THAT reality, is to abandon sanity itself. If you put your hand in the fire, you will be burned. It just doesn't matter what you think will happen. If you jump off a cliff, gravity will have it's way with you. If you stop taking in oxygen, you will lose consciousness. Imagination is not a way around the rules, but a means of helping us understand them, and work within them, to make life better.

John, I am flabbergasted that you would compare what happened in Nazi Germany to what we are talking about and the experiences that people are sharing in this forum.

John
Herr Hitler achieved his ends through brutality and misinformation, beginning at the elementary school level. How does this compare in any way with the gentle teaching of the man from Galilee? Sorry, your argument here has detracted greatly from anything else you have written. I agree with Carla.

John, that was a well reasoned comment considering all we have been through on the subject over the years.

First off, let me explain my own reasoning about the "mass mind" ... I see it as the universal mind of God's creation, the totality of it all ... thus you would say that a panentheistic God is the "culmination" of "that all" ... a God that placed all potentials into motion for His creation to play with, not concerned about just how it plays out because after all, God and creation are the same thing in the panentheistic sense. Thus what will be, will be, via the choice of the majority in the universe (not "just" the world).

A more "religious" (world) view of all of that is the "theistic" view that you seem to hold (and also millions if not (probably) billions of others) where "your" (concept of) God has very "specific" intentions, if not "commandments". This being a more "realistic" world view I suspect, more of an objectified leader/follower version, rather than free will (self/Self responsibility) ... thus many rules, and even laws, are required, because all "society" is divided between the law enforcers and the people, many whose only restraint is the fear of being "caught" ... and because they do not believe in spiritual karmic accounting, they most often think that what they can get away with is just fine, that none will ever know and it it will make no difference other than to their own selfish benefit. The "world" way. (except for of course those the "most religious" in that God will "punish" them for "infractions of the rules", sending them to hell).(thus "they" support, no, PROMOTE, the military and law enforcement authorities who are to keep order because of the "others").

For the panentheistic person, the entire universe is involved with everything, and the faith is, that "it" is more transcended spiritually in relationship to God and the "higher" truth of (+=-), rather than the world view of dualistic black and white of (+/-) "relative" truth.


How all of "that" relates to the mass mind is that it is considered that in the greater picture of it's source, that God as UNconditional Love and Truth "predominates", that the greater likelihood will turn out to be one of trust-ability more than that of something to be deemed negative and fearful. INtuition is that recognition, because it considers the "whole" of all inputs ... knows that God IS INvolved, and trusts that between decisions of choice, that the one that "seems" to be related to that "greater good" is most likely the direction to take moment by moment ... always moment by moment!!!

Thus "we" would NOT be "fooled" by a singular ideology or a "person" such as Hitler ... we would listen to his ideas and take them under INtuitive advisement and trust our own personal result because we seek above all TRUTH and we TRUST GOD to supply it INtuitively. Moment by Moment. That is a "relatively" positive outlook based upon a relatively positive INlook. It is more Love based rather than Fear based ... and after all, when you get right down to it, all such decisions we make moment by moment are nothing more than a 50/50 gamble ... so why not "err" (from your perspective) towards the positive ? ... I know that you think you do that based upon your own Reason, Rationality, and Logic ...

And in the end, there is something for everyone and thus no problem, it is just a matter of personal preference ... with often opposite results in the short term.

The major difference being here in this discussion about whether one trusts and listens more to their own INtuition ... or ... to the words of "authority" ... IMnsHO.

In defense of John, as I "think" I know what point he was attempting to make in regards to Hitler, it is that the views I hold and propose, are to him "New Age" views.

New Age views becoming a very serious "threat" to traditional religious views, the "old" being "orthodoxy" and so much more "fundamentalistic" in comparison to the new.

In other words; Beware of New Age "Voices," because they may well be misleading as was Hitler ... and surprise ... I would second that caution myself.

The reason being simply, that because just like in traditional religions, there are many mouthing words exoterically without the required esoteric experience and/or understanding to provide the more important esoteric meanings ... thus there is much misunderstanding all around, as well as many very shallow presentations and acting out ... much of which will completely mislead any who are not seeking primarily the very highest truths ... that applying to ANY endeavor ... IMnsHO.

Carla,

Is there some particular reason we ought to pretend societies don't "go off the deep end" quite often here in reality? Is this something you have not even considered in relation to this "connectedness" you speculate exists between "souls"? Has it not occurred to you that such a sense of connectedness could be something which does not always result in only good things?

Or is the actual track record of mankind off limits in these parts? Is this a 'fantasy only' zone or something?

Jack,

What in the world are you talking about? I never compared Mr. Hitler's self delusional "messianic" aspirations to Christ's teaching in any way. You just did, but I see no reason why.

Jerry,

"Beware of New Age "Voices," because they may well be misleading as was Hitler ... and surprise ... I would second that caution myself."

Well good, I guess we have at least some "common ground" after all.

Now, let's slow this train down a bit, to consider what you're proposing as the "fix" for the potential catastrophe which awaits "in the wings", if those touting this great collective mind notion, succeed in convincing a large number of people to "trust" what they think it's telling them. There is a distinct "order problem" here. For to get all the "esoteric" meanings of everything, people would FIRST have to begin "trusting" that what they find deeply stirring now, is a Godlike voice within them, but what they find deeply stirring now, is all sorts of propaganda, and egotistical yearnings. If you tell them that's God in there talking to them, and they ought not listen to "outside" voices, then the moment they catch the "wave", they're completely vulnerable to the very propaganda that's in there already. They are no longer hesitant to believe whatever they happen to think is "Truth" right now.

You can say "Deeper, you must look deeper", all you want, but they're not listening to you, cause you're an "outside voice", which if different from what they now believe, and will be ignored, just as you told them was the right thing to do.

You see, even if such a "conversion" were possible, there is simply no way to prevent folks from believing they are converted, cause you just gave them permission to trust whatever they believe, implicitly, without any real evidence. You have told them they are self validating, and trust ME, they will just love that idea . . . to death. And the more egocentric and delusional they are, the more they will love it.

John, one must remember that the message I offer to people is primarily to seek truth ... I have never said to not listen to others, I only say when in doubt as to the truth of what others are saying, trust your INtuition rather than the others ... I do not recommend the flipping of a coin, though that may work just as well, just going with your gut, or heart, or mind, or instincts, and that decision in no way negates the going with the other in the final analysis because that is exactly what your INtuition may suggest for you. Back to that 50/50 thing at the very worst ... and when one takes the time and interests to seek the advice of the INtuition from the spiritual perspective, they may well come to know that to be divinity even ... which would never lie to you because it is truth and always desires that you know truth ...

So all said and done, whether one is really trying and trusting, or just play-acting with their own ego desires, it really will make little "apparent" difference to the world at first, but eventually it will build into an evidence that will impress more and more favourably IMnsHO.


Those that do not value truth will find absolutely no "power" in the concept ... except to make false claims and possibly fool some ignorant others who also do not value truth.

Truth seekers cannot lose when seeking truth ... they may make occasional mistakes through misunderstanding, but the odds of success will be ever changing in their favour for trying.

Jerry,

Don't you understand that people really are prone to believing what makes them feel good, and important? Once many begin speaking of this great connectedness they feel, then OBVIOUSLY those with strong egos, and susceptible to delusional thinking, will naturally want to believe they too are enlightened, and evolved, and seeking "Truth". There's no way in hell you're going to prevent the wannabes, and the manipulators, and the "herd" followers from simply assuming that what turns them on, is this great collective consciousness. Why on earth would such people restrain themselves with such an appealing "status" dangled before their eager hungry eyes?

What we are discussing, I think, is telling us about why God would be so down on "false worship". Once folks start believing in a god that they generate themselves, there's no way to put the genie back in the bottle. Once the individual begins assuming that whatever they find appealing is "sacred", and infallible "Truth", they have no real constraint from simply going bananas. Without a deep humility being a part of "salvation", the self righteousness and judgmental-ism will just explode into chaotic self worship. With each dreamer of great dreams, generating a customized god, with customized rules of the road, that just so happen to render them wise and loving, and any that differ, "rebellious".

This ain't no party. Real people are involved, and they're raring to go off that deep end, as they have so many times before. You have NO WAY to limit what you are trying to unleash, and saying Karma will take care of it, after the whole world is shown the error of their ways, makes no sense. Just look at how Carla and Jack reacted to even mentioning that the sh_t has hit the fan before. I am accused of being a virtual demon, for even noticing what "Karma" brought to those who played this game before.

First humility, then enlightenment. First an understanding of how self deception works, then the approach to "Truth". Otherwise, our "fuse" is lit, and there's no way to snuff it out. Jesus spoke of this, almost verbatum;

I am come to send fire on this earth,
and what shall I, if it be already kindled ?

OK, OK, all right ---------Whoah.

When people speak of "mind" in western thought systems, they often really mean "intellect," which is the kingdom of the ego -------Hitler appealed to ego / grandiosity.

This is why I define the collective higher mind as HeartMind, or the awakened intelligence of the Heart [always aware of the heart/good of the Other; always seeking ways to practice courageous compassion; always cognizant of karmic law].

It seems to me that several folks have gotten trapped into an "intellect-vs-intellect" argument, and of course there's no way out of that as long as one stays in the intellect--ego doesn't back down.

Heart does, though.

When new-age teachings are taken up by intellect/ego, they are pretty much sew-age, don't you think?

But when taken as nourishment by the HeartMind, they are actually no different than all the ancient heart-wisdom teachings which nourish the human spirit.

btw the more I hear of humility and the less of humancentric know-it-all, the happier I am.
Laughing at myself here!
Waiting for the lightning strike, as always, with a little twinkle of mischief in my baby blues.

First off John, the parting quote is not one I am used to hearing, nor can I say that I understand it at the moment. (unless it is about the burning off of the dross in purifying).

But as for all of the rest, what I promote is truth and unconditional love, with the expectation that those that would follow my advice would be seeking just that, and it resulting in so much the better for them.

As for the "others" that you are concerned about that may go off the loose end ... I do not see that being any different than what people do otherwise to this very day ... most people find a reason to do just what they want anyway ... the worst reason being, to me, being that of fear, better that they do it in the name of attempting love and truth ...

If I did not believe this I would not recommend it, if I did not believe in the Karma involved, then there would never be any "proof" showing up to eventually teach. If I did not believe in the eternal picture for it to play out, then it would not have the value, let alone actually work.

Humility or enlightenment, which ever comes first is fine, but false humility for the sake of following a lessor belief system is not recommended at all ... to thine own self be true is always the very best advice ... to fake it until you make it is not what I recommend.

One can find possible "faults" in any system of belief because people are different in their ability and/or desire to understand, not to mention their differing perceptions and valuations of real truth.

But that is all what we are here to find out about, that possibly being our sole reason for being here. Cause and effect will eventually teach.