Want to believe in God but can't

November 29, 2017

Hope that makes sense.

Yes, of course – you always do!

But the one point where I think maybe we differ is the part I highlighted ... As I quoted before Jesus said many many times he came for the sinner not the righteous. For the sick not the healthy.[/Quote] Actually, I agree that Jesus came “not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance”; and also he said, “For judgment I [the Christ or Christ Consciousness] have come into this world, so that the blind may see and those who see may become blind.”

Where we may differ is to whom we believe Jesus was referring, in those two quotes and other similar ones. To my current understanding, it was the spiritual power elite of the time, not the general population that was being oppressed and suppressed by said power elite. (Jesus needed to use the word ‘sinner’ because that reflected the religious beliefs of those to whom he was preaching; they did not use the word ‘Karma’.) Christ Judgment is also not for those of us who suffer from lesser-lower consciousness; it’s for those who time and time and time again refuse to raise themselves up out of the fallen consciousness; they are ‘blind’ in consciousness because they have ‘blinded’ themselves to the Laws of God. (They call themselves righteous and think they can see, but the Living Christ knows that this is not the case. On the other side, ‘those who see’ are the true righteous, and they need to become ‘blind’ to iniquity and temptation.)

Those of us who are struggling to find God to the best of our ability, were not the focus of Jesus’ Mission; it was the Fallen Beings and the false ones who were, at that time, embodied as the scribes, Pharisees, money changers and Sanhedrin. They are not looking for God but looking to be as a god on Earth.

People can and should help themselves and have the ability to transmute negative karma themselves by doing good works and being a good person and following other practices taught in the east. But irrespective of that there are people who reach a point where they are beyond that. ... They have accumulated a large enough "debt" of negative karma that there is no possible way they could hope to pay it off without outside help.[/Quote] Well...we may disagree on the part that I bolded but it depends on how you’re meaning it. From my perspective, as long as someone wants spiritual forgiveness and is willing to repent by abandoning their lesser-lower or fallen ways, then the way for their full salvation is entirely possible. The path is opened up, by Grace if you want to put it that way, for anyone who is truly willing to repent and undertake all needed and necessary spiritual practices – inner confession, cleansing, purifying, etc. It doesn’t depend on our past decisions and choices but on those that we take ‘in the now’.

Yes, we do need to invoke the help of Christ or God or the Holy Spirit – but I don’t consider those as being ‘outside help’ because we access them from within. Once we make a sincere Call for that help, then we are already worthy of receiving it or of receiving the Grace of it. We are already Spiritual-Divine Beings – created so by God, meaning that we cannot lose it (even if we can lose sight of it or cover it over with our lesser-lower-consciousness garbage) – but/so, we only need to qualify ourselves to receive God’s or the Holy Spirit’s Grace and Forgiveness, first by asking for it and then through our conscious, active, sincere, consistent spiritual efforts.

And the consequences of "sin" are very real. That's maybe another thing I also feel some new age teachings are too "lovey dovey" with no balance - they wrongly "de-emphasise" this.[/Quote] So...I realized that we’re not using the term ‘New Age’ in the same way. I don’t follow popular authors as true spiritual teachers – but most of them still do offer truth that we can uncover if we use our Christ Discernment. However, I find much more value-for-my-Energy-and-time in what are called ‘Ascended-Master Teachings’. (For current-day spiritual teachings, I really don’t go to any other teachings or authors, anymore. Nevertheless, I will follow you! .)

So for me this was a large part of the purpose of Jesus "mission" and the symbolism of his crucifixion - to provide a way for those who had no way. To get in between this cycle of negative karma and act as the payer of debts for those who would never be able to repay what they owed. Because forgiveness of debt is not "free" - it requires someone else to foot the bill. In this case God\Jesus offering their own spirit to transmute the negative energy and consequences. A metaphysical blood sacrifice so to speak.[/Quote] So...here is where we don’t hold the same interpretation of events. Jesus’ Mission was to break a force of negative Karma that was attached to Earth at that time, and it had to be done in the physical – we agree on that. Jesus accomplished this outside of his crucifixion. (It actually had to be broken at levels of the collective consciousness but by somebody embodied on Earth.)

I don’t agree that ‘Jesus’ is an interchangeable name or word for ‘God’, and I don’t agree that ‘blood sacrifice’ is a spiritual or God Concept. To me, it is an entirely fallen-consciousness construct and, thus, Christ and Jesus-the-Christ would not ever be involved in any blood sacrifice of any kind. God did not, would not and never has sanctioned, demanded or required it; not for atonement, not for Forgiveness, not for devotion or worship. (All blood sacrifices throughout every Age came out of the mind of the Fallen Beings or the Antichrist – not God and not the Christ Mind.)

The Fallen Beings and their legions physically crucified Jesus, and all they did by this was to ensure their own Christ Judgment. (“For judgment I have come into this world.”) The Fallen Beings spilled the blood of the Living Christ; God never told them to do it; an act of a Fallen Being cannot transmute or raise up negative Energies. Nevertheless, Christ Judgment actually is a Grace – and it is extended to every single Lifestream no matter how large is their accumulated karmic debt. No one is beyond redemption until they choose the Second Death for themselves.

For sake of interest, there is a Teaching that says that Hitler chose the Second Death after he realized how much it would take to clear his karmic debt after his last embodiment.

How I interpret it is that we must settle our own spiritual or karmic debts down to the last ‘jot and stroke of pen’; it’s our responsibility and we must do it personally, individually. If it takes a thousand lifetimes – as long as we keep earning for our self the privilege of opportunity to keep reincarnating – then that’s what it takes. (We have to keep earning it and, if not, there is some kind of limit.) Our forgiveness of our debt is not free, no, but neither is it or any portion of it transferable, either. We are the only payer of our own debts.

Also, how I think about it is: How, two-thousand years ago, could there possibly be a blanket absolution or Spiritual Dispensation granted for all future sins, including those committed by Hitler, with the atomic bomb, in Jesus’ Name, etc., etc. – when, given free will, these sins and the horrific nature and impact on humanity was not even yet imagined? How could these have been “paid for in advance”?

Hell is to me a metaphysical place and it occurs when someone has developed such a huge level of bad karma they are burried under it into a never ending cycle of pain and suffering where they essentially destroy themselves.[/Quote] My understanding is also that hell takes up the lowest octave of the Astral plane of Earth, and it is experienced as ‘never-ending’ in the same way as when we suffer it can feel like that. That is, even the hell Beings do get their opportunities to repent and save themselves. We can only destroy our Lifestream in the Spiritual realm – through the Initiation of the Second Death. (To be honest, at this point I can’t yet wrap my head around the hell realm or the Beings who reside there. Still have work to do about it.)

Forceful judgment is sometimes necessary and Fear of god is still wise advice in addition to love of.[/Quote] Jesus never taught ‘fear of God’, and any judgment forced upon us by God would violate God’s own Law of Free Will. If we trust Jesus’ words, then in any case we would not fear God but ‘the Son’ (Christ or Christ Consciousness), because Jesus said, “Furthermore, the Father judges no one, but has assigned all judgments to the Son.”

However, there is absolutely nothing to fear because Christ Judgment only means that the individual is given one last opportunity to save him- or herself. It’s a free-will decision of the Lifestream and not made by God or any Ascended Representative of Christ. When faced with Christ Judgment, the option for the Lifestream is to come back into the Light, to repent and to start properly transmuting its Karma, or to choose the Second Death.

I think...for me, the Law of Karma sufficiently explains all the negativity, pain and suffering that we can see on this planet or that we experience personally – as well as it explains all the joy, positive and inspirational. I don’t believe in anything like ‘God’s Wrath’ against us, individually or collectively. I do believe that God’s Love is unconditional and God’s Law is impersonal – “He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”

For me, that’s empowering and uplifting because it makes me the master of my own fate and the captain of my own Soul. Of course I have to live within the Law of God and I have to detach myself from ‘loving the world or anything in the world’, like Jesus and the saints and the Bhudda did – but why would I not want to do that to the best of my spiritual understanding, in any case? (Not that it’s easy to detach from caring about our physical body and our life on Earth and the people we love on Earth, but that’s what it takes; that’s what the scriptures tell us to do.)

November 30, 2017

Well...we may disagree on the part that I bolded but it depends on how you’re meaning it. From my perspective, as long as someone wants spiritual forgiveness and is willing to repent by abandoning their lesser-lower or fallen ways, then the way for their full salvation is entirely possible. The path is opened up, by Grace if you want to put it that way, for anyone who is truly willing to repent and undertake all needed and necessary spiritual practices – inner confession, cleansing, purifying, etc. It doesn’t depend on our past decisions and choices but on those that we take ‘in the now’.

... How I interpret it is that we must settle our own spiritual or karmic debts down to the last ‘jot and stroke of pen’; it’s our responsibility and we must do it personally, individually. If it takes a thousand lifetimes – as long as we keep earning for our self the privilege of opportunity to keep reincarnating – then that’s what it takes. (We have to keep earning it and, if not, there is some kind of limit.) Our forgiveness of our debt is not free, no, but neither is it or any portion of it transferable, either. We are the only payer of our own debts.

What I am trying to say here is that I feel Jesus life and death added something more. Grace as you say always afforded the ability of repentance. People if they changed their ways could work to undertake all needed and necessary spiritual practices and grace would open a way for it to happen so they can heal themselves. But this took effort on the part of the sinner.

It didn't provide the ability for the spirit of god to enter a sinner and literally transform them and remove their sins and the karmic consequences without effort on their part. I feel Jesus life provided and was symbolic of this - and I say this because I experienced it directly. It is where the whole "born again" christian movement comes from people who experienced this. And I know its hard if you haven't experienced it (though probably a good thing because it means you haven't sinned enough to need it).

It is symbolized through his resurrection - someone who has committed great sin and done nothing to redeem themselves being touched and absolved completely. And it happens through the heart space as depicted in the "Jesus sacred heart" motif. That picture is a literal depiction of how you experience it. The spirit enters through the heart - and believe me when it does you don't miss it. Its like an energy eruption in the heart space - feels like your heart is literally exploding with love. I couldn't do anything when it happened but meditate and walk in the forest for about 3 weeks. It was so intense and beautiful I was just sitting and crying from the bliss that was washing over me - I started temporarily seeing auras and energy fields and all sorts of crazy stuff I never thought existed.

The experience completely cleanses your energy body - and heals any illness \ sickness you have. I had serious gastro intesinal issues and very serious back issue - sever disc herniation - I had been laid low with and at doctors for months and it was healed in a matter of days after I encountered the energy. It was a literal miracle just as you see in the bible. I was blind and now I could see both physically - and spiritually.

So my take, which is largely based on this experience, is that his physical ministry on earth - going to sinners and healing them then dying and coming back - is and was a metphor - a parable for a new spiritual experience that is still available today. A sinner encountering the spirit and being completely and instantly absolved of their sins and karma associated with them. Being reborn. His life was symbolic of a new way of god interacting with his son's and daughters. It was offering a fresh start - complete regeneration and absolution through his love.

If you are a righteous person - (Which I take you to be) - I understand why this doesn't necessarily effect you or speak to you. Because you never needed it. Take that as a very VERY good thing which speaks to the way you lived your life to this point

I don’t agree that ‘Jesus’ is an interchangeable name or word for ‘God’, and I don’t agree that ‘blood sacrifice’ is a spiritual or God Concept. To me, it is an entirely fallen-consciousness construct and, thus, Christ and Jesus-the-Christ would not ever be involved in any blood sacrifice of any kind. God did not, would not and never has sanctioned, demanded or required it; not for atonement, not for Forgiveness, not for devotion or worship. (All blood sacrifices throughout every Age came out of the mind of the Fallen Beings or the Antichrist – not God and not the Christ Mind.)

Depends how you look at it - I look at it more in the Vedic\Hindu sense. He was an "avatar" of god. A living embodiment of god. I see "god" as a pattern of energy - Jesus matched that pattern exactly (or as close as anyone has achieved) - therefore he is god - just in human form. I see the relationship between Jesus \ God as being "fractal". A self similar pattern or "made in his image" so to speak where a small part (jesus) reflects the pattern of the "whole" (God) .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3YvheUKSEg Thus I use them interchangeably - but I understand why this causes confusion because of the way traditional Christians worship the man rather then what he spiritually represented. If you see the human caricature. The man with the beard and the robes - "the idol" - as "God" then your missing the point. It was his pattern of behaviour that made him "godly" not his name or his appearance etc. You don't want to grasp too tightly to the idea of the man - but at the same time the man embodied god so his human form provides an avenue we can relate to - to understand what "god looks\behaves like" which we can connect with and aspire to.

In terms of his death - like I said I feel its mostly symbolic. Dying to sin - and reborn in to god. Him (god) taking the load of our sin - the deathly consequences as his own and removing them so we can be born anew.

Also, how I think about it is: How, two-thousand years ago, could there possibly be a blanket absolution or Spiritual Dispensation granted for all future sins, including those committed by Hitler, with the atomic bomb, in Jesus’ Name, etc., etc. – when, given free will, these sins and the horrific nature and impact on humanity was not even yet imagined? How could these have been “paid for in advance”?

Well did Jesus heal everyone when he was physically on earth ? No - there was no "blanket" absolution or healing. Actually he showed utter contempt for some. He didn't heal any of the pharisees he still showed discernment with who he provided his grace to. He instructed his disciples to completely avoid those who showed no desire for contrition and move on to helping others. I think that same rule applies to who this experience potentially becomes available to today - contrition perhaps being the minimum pre requisite. And like I said his death 2000 years ago was symbolic - a parable - for what happens when this experience actively occurs to this very today. Because it didn't happen "just once" way back 2000 years ago - its a parable to convey a deeper spiritual truth. He (God) "carries the cross all over again" so to speak when he takes the burden off your shoulders, enters you and provides his divine healing spirit to wash your sins and their consequences clean. It wasn't "paid in advance" - he paid my bill and carried my cross only 2 years ago The idea is having had this experience (as I have) - you try to take up your cross and follow him to help others just as his disciples did. To teach - to guide - to heal others who have gone off the path. Obviously we can't do what Jesus did (though more and more I see that as a matter of faith then any inherent limitation) - but we can still help - to make the spiritual load lighter to carry just as Simon did on the road to Calvary.

But I still agree with you that the church today has kind of twisted the premise - and turned it into an idea of "relying on Jesus" rather then following his example.

Jesus never taught ‘fear of God’, and any judgment forced upon us by God would violate God’s own Law of Free Will. If we trust Jesus’ words, then in any case we would not fear God but ‘the Son’ (Christ or Christ Consciousness), because Jesus said, “Furthermore, the Father judges no one, but has assigned all judgments to the Son.”

However, there is absolutely nothing to fear because Christ Judgment only means that the individual is given one last opportunity to save him- or herself. It’s a free-will decision of the Lifestream and not made by God or any Ascended Representative of Christ.

Hmm on this point I think you are being selective with your scripture references for Jesus stated on numerous occasions there would be great wrath apon those who did not repent. Again from my perspective I think this is maybe because you lived a good life - and perhaps are naive\innicent in a very good way to the consequences of sin. The child consciousness Jesus encouraged. Pure innocence. But Jesus wasn't really ambiguous about the consequences of sin - especially for those who had received god's grace and still not repented. And this is one of the things I try to ensure people understand - as people "ascend" its even more important that we are acting in accordance with God's will. You're taking more energy - there for you have to produce a "larger crop". Its an energetic system - with great power comes great responsibility (part of the reason he said its harder for a rich man to enter heaven then a camel to pass through the eye of a needle) A tree which takes more nutrients is judged differently to one who uses little. So we must always be asking ourselves - what is the "fruit" of our spiritual effort ?

Eg: Luke 12:47 - "The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him, and at an hour of which he is unaware. Then He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers. That servant who knows his master’s will but does not get ready or follow his instructions will be beaten with many blows. "

Matt 12:15 "And if anyone will not welcome you or heed your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town"

Matt 13:24 "Parable of the weeds: While you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

John 15:1 "Parable of the true vine: I am the true vine, and My Father is the keeper of the vineyard. He cuts off every branch in Me that bears no fruit, and every branch that does bear fruit, He prunes to make it even more fruitful."

Luke 13:6 "Parable of the barren fig: A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down"

Edited November 30, 2017 by Justanaverageguy

November 30, 2017

People if they changed their ways could work to undertake all needed and necessary spiritual practices and grace would open a way for it to happen so they can heal themselves. But this took effort on the part of the sinner.

How I’m interpreting what you’re saying is that you did not make any spiritual effort on your own part in order to receive the Grace and Blessing of your experience but, instead, it was bestowed upon you out of some storehouse of ‘Universal Absolution’ that has only been in existence for around two-thousand years.

From my own current belief system, how I would put it is: You did not make any efforts of which you are consciously aware. (I would say that your awakening would not have taken place without you having, at least at inner levels, desired it out of your own free will and that you also would have undertaken, at least at inner levels, some spiritual activity that opened up your own path. It doesn’t have to have been in this lifetime, and it doesn’t have to have been only when you were in a conscious waking state.)

I don’t accept that people on Earth are spiritually powerless, helpless and unworthy – even if some people see or want to see themselves that way (spiritual inferiority, or not wanting to take 100% spiritual responsibility, or whatever their personal reasons) – but we still do have to qualify ourselves in order to receiving the Grace and Blessings that are flowing freely throughout the universe. “He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”

Well did Jesus heal everyone when he was physically on earth ? ... He instructed his disciples to completely avoid those who showed no desire for contrition and move on to helping others.[/Quote] This is exactly what I’m saying. The ones who did not want to make their own spiritual efforts are beyond being able to receive the Grace and Blessings of Christ, be that at the physical level through a Living Christ or metaphysically, directly from the Holy Spirit. It’s that such people have not qualified themselves for the Grace and Blessing, not that God or the Holy Spirit or Christ is being all arbitrary or capricious about who is qualified, not qualified or disqualified (spiritually worthy or unworthy).

Jesus was discriminating but it was not based on outer appearances (religion, profession, status, gender), it was based on the person’s inner spirituality; he used his Christ Discernment. Ref: Luke 7:1-10 (and Matthew 8:5-13), and Luke 19:1-10.

I see the relationship between Jesus \ God as being "fractal". ... Thus I use them interchangeably - but I understand why this causes confusion because of the way traditional Christians worship the man rather then what he spiritually represented.[/Quote] I do understand about Divine Matrices. I have already made clear my distinction between Jesus-the-man and the Christ Consciousness that he attained and demonstrated on Earth. It is worshiping the man to call Jesus the same as God, instead of calling Christ the same as God. And it is idolatry of the man Jesus to think that he is or could be the only one to ever be able to become a Christed Being; I agree with you that we ought not to turn Jesus into an idol.

As individualizations of God we each have our own unique-personal Divine Matrix or God’s Immaculate Concept for our individualized Consciousness. Christhood means manifesting our unique God Matrix or Pattern.

When you yourself realize and manifest your personal Christhood, then in your present system, we would have to say that there are now three interchangeable Beings: Justanaverageguy = Jesus = God.
The difference is that, in my present system, we would say:
Justanaverageguy = Christ; Jesus = Christ; Ronni = Christ; etc., etc., to include all Divine Beings created by God (who have made their individual efforts and worked to pass their Spiritual Initiation to attain their personal Christhood); and then all of these are distilled into: Christ = God

The distinction may be so subtle as to be easily missed.

Hmm on this point I think you are being selective with your scripture references for Jesus stated on numerous occasions there would be great wrath apon those who did not repent.[/Quote] I don’t know what is being (mis)interpreted that is making you think that I don’t understand or accept what you refer to as ‘the consequences of sin’. I’ve already mentioned the Second Death, which is the greatest (most negative) consequence of ‘sin’, and I most assuredly do recognize and accept the seriousness of a Lifestream for whom the Second Death becomes its only way out rather than surrendering to the Christ Within and making the free-will decision and choice to repent and once again start raising up its consciousness to that of its Divine Matrix.

As a spiritual teacher, of course Jesus had to help all people understand the negative consequence of a continued (over many lifetimes and opportunities) refusal to come back into the Light and get back on a spiritual path – which is just another way of saying, ‘refusal to repent, confess, cleanse, purify, etc.’ A true spiritual teacher cannot just paint the rosey picture of Heaven as the positive consequence (reward) for making proper, higher decisions and choices. Nevertheless, the consequence (punishment or reward) is on account of our own free-will decisions and choices (made also at inner or metaphysical levels and over many lifetimes, including in Bardo).

We bring our negative consequences on ourselves – through our spiritual pride, stubbornness, willful ignorance, arrogance, sense of spiritual inferiority, etc., etc. That is, our (negative) consequences of our own free-will decisions to ‘sin’ are self-created and not forced upon us by some angry, wrathful, arbitrary and capricious God nor through Christ Judgment; our negative experiences are merely the result or outplaying of the Universal or God Law of Cause and Effect, also called the Law of Karma. Negative consequences (effects – conditions, circumstances) for our negative use of our own free will (over many lifetimes, not just this one), and positive for positive which, of course, an awakening experience such as we each have had in this lifetime is positive.

If you are a righteous person - (Which I take you to be) ... Again from my perspective I think this is maybe because you lived a good life - and perhaps are naive\innicent in a very good way to the consequences of sin.[/Quote] For sure I’ve never been accused of being naïve, , and I guess it depends on your definition of ‘a righteous person’. The people who know me in real life are highly unlikely to classify me as such, and I’ve never even thought about myself in such terms. I’ve already mentioned, I think, that we all still are at various levels of being in the lesser-lower consciousness – you call this ‘being a sinner’ and I call it ‘still having negative Karma to balance’. Whatever we call it, though, I’m no exception.

For you to begin to know the hardships that I’ve dealt with (in this lifetime) – and there has been physical illness and some kind of metaphysical interference, as well – would take a week and many cases of beer. Consequences of my own prior spiritual mistakes, not the doings of a wrathful God; I don’t need to blame God for the consequences (the effects) of my own prior mistakes or ‘sins’ (the cause). At the same time, like you, I’m not aware in my outer mind what I did to qualify myself to receive my this lifetime’s awakening experience – but I know intuitively that it couldn’t have happened without me; I can also claim my own spiritual progress and attainment.

The only way that my mind can grasp some of how your mind is looking at certain things, is if I tell myself that this is the only lifetime we get, that what counts is only what we know with our outer mind, and that only our experiences during waking awareness are important or have any relevance or impact on our spiritual learning, growth, progress and attainment. So, everything you’re saying does make sense in the sense that I can understand where you’re coming from. But, among other things, I believe in reincarnation and that there is also a metaphysical reality (not just the material-physical that we need our physical senses and conscious mind to confirm for us), so I don’t share some of your perspective.

Again, much food for thought for being on a spiritual path and finding God

In Love and Light.

December 1, 2017

For sure I’ve never been accused of being naïve, , and I guess it depends on your definition of ‘a righteous person’. The people who know me in real life are highly unlikely to classify me as such, and I’ve never even thought about myself in such terms. I’ve already mentioned, I think, that we all still are at various levels of being in the lesser-lower consciousness – you call this ‘being a sinner’ and I call it ‘still having negative Karma to balance’. Whatever we call it, though, I’m no exception.

For you to begin to know the hardships that I’ve dealt with (in this lifetime) – and there has been physical illness and some kind of metaphysical interference, as well – would take a week and many cases of beer. Consequences of my own prior spiritual mistakes, not the doings of a wrathful God; I don’t need to blame God for the consequences (the effects) of my own prior mistakes or ‘sins’ (the cause). At the same time, like you, I’m not aware in my outer mind what I did to qualify myself to receive my this lifetime’s awakening experience – but I know intuitively that it couldn’t have happened without me; I can also claim my own spiritual progress and attainment.

I'm really sorry - I feel really bad re-reading this. My comments definitely came across as very condescending and presumptive. It wasn't my intention when writing it to be that way but they definitely are. I have no idea on your background and shouldn't have presumed as much. Hope you accept my apologies for these remarks. We each have our paths to walk and challenges to face and I have no doubt you have had your fair share. I think we just have a difference of opinion on the consequences of sin - I should have found a way to word this better then I did.

How I’m interpreting what you’re saying is that you did not make any spiritual effort on your own part in order to receive the Grace and Blessing of your experience but, instead, it was bestowed upon you out of some storehouse of ‘Universal Absolution’ that has only been in existence for around two-thousand years.

From my own current belief system, how I would put it is: You did not make any efforts of which you are consciously aware. (I would say that your awakening would not have taken place without you having, at least at inner levels, desired it out of your own free will and that you also would have undertaken, at least at inner levels, some spiritual activity that opened up your own path. It doesn’t have to have been in this lifetime, and it doesn’t have to have been only when you were in a conscious waking state.)

I don’t accept that people on Earth are spiritually powerless, helpless and unworthy – even if some people see or want to see themselves that way (spiritual inferiority, or not wanting to take 100% spiritual responsibility, or whatever their personal reasons) – but we still do have to qualify ourselves in order to receiving the Grace and Blessings that are flowing freely throughout the universe.

I was about as far from spiritual awakening and spiritual advancement as you could possibly hope to envisage. I was sky diving into oblivion so to speak. I won't argue that I may have done something in a previous life to perhaps warrant additional mercy - no way for me to really know though. All I know is my experience mirrored exactly what is talked about in the Christian tradition - which I was raised into - rather then some other schools. It was also extended to me - but yet I see so many others in pain and on similar roads to destruction that did not receive the same grace.

Also as I alluded to in the previous post - I just don't think "god" was previously actively intervening in such a direct and transformative way. It is not by my own hand but his that I was raised up and restored. You previously said it was entirely up to us to transform ourselves and pay our own karma and none of it can be transferred. This is one thing I categorically know to be false based on personal experience - its not a maybe or a possibly wrong - its definitely not true and I am living proof. You could say I "qualified" in some way - but nothing can truly earn what I received. Thus to me - Jesus life was simply intended as a metaphor - a parable like all of his teachings to show this change. It was symbolic. I feel like maybe because you didn't have this specific type of Sinner transformed experience you're maybe trying to adjust Jesus message into something that fits your own narrative. Thus your view is that the NT teaching is wrong and has been corrupted. My experience on the other hand matches exactly to the teaching - there for I think it is correct and was intended the way it has been presented.

And no one is saying we have to be spiritually powerless - though humbleness is something I have had to learn the hard way. It's really not through force of effort - but surrender that spiritual "power" is achieved. So sure you "might" be able to achieve it under your own steam - I'm just saying its not the only way and Jesus life symbolized a new path through grace.

The only way that my mind can grasp some of how your mind is looking at certain things, is if I tell myself that this is the only lifetime we get, that what counts is only what we know with our outer mind, and that only our experiences during waking awareness are important or have any relevance or impact on our spiritual learning, growth, progress and attainment. So, everything you’re saying does make sense in the sense that I can understand where you’re coming from. But, among other things, I believe in reincarnation and that there is also a metaphysical reality (not just the material-physical that we need our physical senses and conscious mind to confirm for us), so I don’t share some of your perspective.

So we share the belief in reincarnation - I also believe it takes many lives to refine ourselves. It is not that I think this lifetime is all we get - I think if we are worthy we get many. But at the same time I also think its entirely possible to completely destroy yourself in a single life time. So for me there is an immediacy - and urgency - and more importance placed on the consequences of sin. This opinion is again formed simply from my own experience of what happens when we do. Its not that we only get 1 life to live - its that it only takes 1 badly lived life to "die"

Edited December 1, 2017 by Justanaverageguy

December 1, 2017

Thinking about our different perspectives - I feel like in a way we are maybe the two brothers in the story of the prodigal son. (again not meaning to cast any dispersion about your path or history). But I see what I am talking about as being the path of prodigal son who having come upon ruin received grace from his father - thus he affords all the thanks and power to that father who welcomed him back with open arms and restored him. You perhaps are advocating for the path of the "good son". The one who through good works and consistent positive action achieves his goal without the need for the fathers grace. They are both valid paths. Though the good son path is the more nobel of the two which we should all aspire to. I just think Jesus message was intended to show the path of redemption. Being brought back from death to life.

Also I'm thinking we should take your earlier advice - and let BC take his thread back. We can move our back and forth to another thread as it has gone off the original topic

Edited December 1, 2017 by Justanaverageguy

December 1, 2017

I'm really sorry - Hope you accept my apologies for these remarks.

Hugs, Justanaverageguy. No probs at all. I know you well enough to know that there isn’t anything condescending in your thoughts, feelings and attitudes towards other people! . (And, if I didn’t know that about you by now, then you really wouldn’t want me for a friend, would you? – You are nothing but kind, gentle and gracious on these boards, and if I didn’t recognize that, then there’d be something wrong with me, not you.) Please don’t give it any more thought. .

I think we just have a difference of opinion on the consequences of sin -[/Quote] Actually, I think possibly it’s more that we each have been focusing on, we could almost say, different classes of ‘sin’. To me, there’s your more-or-less ‘run-of-the-mill’ type, which almost everyone practices to one or another degree. These do have consequences, of course, but they can be transmuted without too much fuss or bother through our use of proper spiritual techniques, so they don’t have too long or onerous effects on the Lifestream (at the Spiritual-identity level). Here the most important thing is that we need to have awareness and humility enough to realize our need for confession and repentance. Consequences are going to be milder forms of distress and discomfort in life, including relationships, physical illness, materially/financially.

Then you have the level where people actually know that they’ve got ‘sins’ that they need to confess and repent but they won't do it out of pride, stubbornness or a need to think that they're perfect; or, out of fear or misguided loyalty, they’re keeping themselves blind (willfully ignorant) to higher spiritual truths even when those make more sense to them; or, they know how to live a more spiritual life but they’re making conscious free-will decisions to not do it (pride, stubbornness, willful spiritual disobedience). Here they’re going to run into heavier negative consequences than the first group. Worse relationships, worse physical illnesses, worse conditions and circumstances all around, and start to get into diagnosable mental illness.

Then you have the Hitlers, Stalins, Attila the Huns and Maos in their fallen level of consciousness. These are the ones who can tap-out all their remaining spiritual opportunities in a single lifetime. They have a serious debt and it will take a lot to pay it off, possibly including one or more trips to the hell realm. They themselves get to choose, though, how they want to proceed – the Law of Free Will reigns supreme for all unascended Beings of the material world of form, no exceptions; God’s Love is impersonal, not only unconditional. But. Everybody needs to be willing to work for our own Spiritual Forgiveness, redemption and salvation – by giving up pride and showing willingness to confess and repent. The ones in this group are seldom ready to do that and then they leave themselves only one option: to choose the Second Death, which has the effect of permanently annihilating the portion of God Consciousness that had gone into creating them (their Divine Matrix) in the first place, which is why this is the greatest, most negative consequence of ‘sin’ or, of choosing to not purify one’s consciousness and transmute one’s negative Karma.

In consciousness, the Pharisees, scribes and Sanhedrin of Jesus’ time belonged to this last group. I’m not at all saying that Jesus did not come to help the ones in the first two groups, but he came to bring Christ Judgment – or what you call ‘God’s Wrath’ – upon the last group. (The ones in the first two groups are not at the same risk of actually losing their opportunity to re-embody on Earth.)

But at the same time I also think its entirely possible to completely destroy yourself in a single life time.[/Quote] As I said above, for the third group it is possible – if the Lifestream, after transitioning out of the physical body, will not admit to its spiritual mistakes (‘sins’) or does not want to make itself humble, surrender to God, confess, repent and go through whatever purifying acts it needs to suffer in order for it to be able to come back on a spiritual path. (And suffer it will have to!)

but yet I see so many others in pain and on similar roads to destruction that did not receive the same grace.[/Quote] That is because they are in ‘group 2’ above. They still have opportunities (or they’d not be embodied on Earth) but they’re not yet ready to give up their spiritually non-constructive or destructive ways, or they’ve still got too much pride and/or stubbornness to admit that they’re making spiritual mistakes or 'sinning'.

I know somebody like this. And in her next lifetime, you’re going to be looking at her and also asking why she’s one of the ones not getting any Grace. And, sure as heck, she’s going to be wondering that about her own self – “What have I done to deserve this?” Exactly what she’s done to deserve it will be written in her Akashic File and, unless she turns it around for herself, after that lifetime, she’ll get to see it...again. Just like she’s gonna get to see it after this one.

It’s sad, for sure, and I’ve done all I can about it. In fact, did too much and actually went and, unknown to me at the time, generated negative Karma for myself. (She’s made herself into – free-will chose it for herself to be - one of those whom Jesus told his disciples to avoid, and just move on to the people who can actually be helped because they’re willing to change themselves and thus have qualified or opened themselves to receiving Grace. God truly does help those who help themselves. And I’d also say that willful spiritual pride, ignorance, blindness and disobedience just does not pay; not even innocent ignorance. .)

All I know is my experience mirrored exactly what is talked about in the Christian tradition - which I was raised into -[/Quote] I was raised Roman Catholic. Just because we were given non-sensical, false or misguided teachings and messages in our formative years doesn’t mean that we have to hold onto it as being valid or applicable.

So...I’m not really sure if we’re helping BC1980 at this point. If we want to continue what seems to have become our conversation then perhaps we should take it off-board or start a new thread?
(BC1980, sorry if we've taken it over in ways with which you're not happy.)

December 1, 2017

Sorry, Justanaverageguy – I was busy with my post above, and didn’t see yours in time. Posting this just so’s you know that I’m not ignoring you. .

But I see what I am talking about as being the path of prodigal son who having come upon ruin received grace from his father - thus he affords all the thanks and power to that father who welcomed him back with open arms and restored him.

Too true, we are ALL God’s prodigal sons and daughters! That is a definite ‘for sure!’

I’m focusing on what the prodigals have to do in order for God to be able to welcome us back, which the Biblical prodigal also had to do – and did do.

(We have to be willing to be humble enough to make that long, and maybe even a little bit uncomfortable, humiliating, ‘tail-between-the-legs’ trip home. Us having to make the trip, is the part that I focus on. Because. I already know what God’s gonna do as soon as I put myself in His sights...so, now all I need to pay attention to is: what do *I* have to do to get myself in range of ‘Home’.)

December 2, 2017

Y
I don’t agree that ‘Jesus’ is an interchangeable name or word for ‘God’, and I don’t agree that ‘blood sacrifice’ is a spiritual or God Concept. To me, it is an entirely fallen-consciousness construct and, thus, Christ and Jesus-the-Christ would not ever be involved in any blood sacrifice of any kind. God did not, would not and never has sanctioned, demanded or required it; not for atonement, not for Forgiveness, not for devotion or worship. (All blood sacrifices throughout every Age came out of the mind of the Fallen Beings or the Antichrist – not God and not the Christ Mind.)

Hi Ronni,

I am trying to understand that if you do not believe Christ's blood was shed for the remission of sins, how you reconcile the direct words out of his mouth in which He claimed his blood was specifically poured out for the remission of sins.

In fact, one of the few rituals Christ instituted was the communion in which we specifically are commanded to drink wine in remembrance of Christ's blood which was shed for the remission of sins. Christ said this directly.

Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Jesus never taught ‘fear of God’, and any judgment forced upon us by God would violate God’s own Law of Free Will. If we trust Jesus’ words, then in any case we would not fear God but ‘the Son’ (Christ or Christ Consciousness), because Jesus said, “Furthermore, the Father judges no one, but has assigned all judgments to the Son.”

I disagree as the text I am reading which has the words of Christ in red print, states that Christ said to fear God who can destroy both body and soul.

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Edited December 2, 2017 by TheFinalWord

December 2, 2017

Hi Ronni,

I am trying to understand

Hi TheFinalWord,

It's a matter of either taking the Bible literally or seeking the deeper/hidden meanings. I accept also the Progressive Revelations of the Living Word.

Somewhere in this thread I've posted links to articles about the (Christian) Ritual of Holy Communion, and about the spiritual validity of 'blood sacrifice'.

December 2, 2017

Hi TheFinalWord,

It's a matter of either taking the Bible literally or seeking the deeper/hidden meanings. I accept also the Progressive Revelations of the Living Word.

Somewhere in this thread I've posted links to articles about the (Christian) Ritual of Holy Communion, and about the spiritual validity of 'blood sacrifice'.

Well, I believe that I also look for the deeper/hidden meanings, such as to study koine Greek to understand the context of the passages. However, and I mean no insult, what it sounds like you are proposing would require me to ignore the direct words of Christ.

For example, if I were to say, "Sally ran up the hill." I could study the context deeper by looking at surrounding text to understand perhaps what type of hill Sally ran up or maybe even how fast she ran, Sally's age, etc. But none of that would lead me to believe Sally did not run up the hill. Studying deeper is to study the context (cultural context, literary devices, original meaning) so that we can understand the passage more clearly. I do not see how studying deeper requires one to dismiss the clear, direct meaning of the text. Taking something literally does not necessarily mean to ignore context. Taking something literally is often proffered as a negative, close minded view. But that's not the case at all IMHO. For example, many passages in the bible are clearly figurative, anthropomorphic, or poetic. To read lines of poetry as they are were intended would be the literal reading, but it would not require one to ignore that they are poetry, like the book of Psalms.

Edited December 2, 2017 by TheFinalWord

December 2, 2017

Well, I believe that I also look for the deeper/hidden meanings, such as to study koine Greek to understand the context of the passages. However, and I mean no insult, what it sounds like you are proposing would require me to ignore the direct words of Christ.

For example, if I were to say, "Sally ran up the hill." I could study the context deeper by looking at surrounding text to understand perhaps what type of hill Sally ran up or maybe even how fast she ran, Sally's age, etc. But none of that would lead me to believe Sally did not run up the hill. Studying deeper is to study the context (cultural context, literary devices, original meaning) so that we can understand the passage more clearly. I do not see how studying deeper requires one to dismiss the clear, direct meaning of the text. Taking something literally does not necessarily mean to ignore context. Taking something literally is often proffered as a negative, close minded view. But that's not the case at all IMHO. For example, many passages in the bible are clearly figurative, anthropomorphic, or poetic. To read lines of poetry as they are were intended would be the literal reading, but it would not require one to ignore that they are poetry, like the book of Psalms.

I like this explanation. I'm open to different interpretations, but I struggle with how far to take it. I understand that reading is a subjective experience, but, at a certain point, some things are black and white. It's attractive to say there are multiple interpretations to anything, but teasing that out to its end is just as bad as being a straight literalist.

I was talking to a guy that is in divinity school to be an Episcopal priest, and he actually said he doesn't think it matters whether or not Jesus rose physically from the dead or there is life after death. I was kind of shocked at that. I didn't think those two ideas were negotiable. What is the point then? And if you don't think Jesus actually rose from the dead, why even take anything else in the NT seriously at all? I don't see any other way to interpret the Gospels other than Jesus rose physically from the dead.

December 2, 2017

What is the point then? And if you don't think Jesus actually rose from the dead, why even take anything else in the NT seriously at all? I don't see any other way to interpret the Gospels other than Jesus rose physically from the dead.

You are correct. The spiritual resurrection was taught by the gnostics (which means knowledge). Correcting their false teachings were at the heart of most of Paul's epistles.

The physical, bodily resurrection (which implies he died) is one of the main issues that separates the Abrahamic religions. To the Jews, Jesus was not the Messiah, to the Muslims, Christ was a prophet, but only appeared to die. To Christians, Jesus, the Son of God, died and rose physically from the dead.

It seems Christ explicitly made this point to the apostles by allowing the apostles to observe him, touch his body, and he also ate with them.

They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence. He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

Using Sally up the hill example, the apparent new method of interpretation would say Sally did not run the hill, as a spirit, she floated over the "hill" of oppression.

Now let's assume the passage said, Sally ran up the hill, stubbed her toe along the way, and acquired a few grass stains when she tripped. John saw her run up the hill, chased after her, but couldn't keep up and ran out of breath. I mean what else could we include in the passage to make it any more clearer the author is talking about a physical hill.

Edited December 2, 2017 by TheFinalWord

December 2, 2017

I'm open to different interpretations, but I struggle with how far to take it. I understand that reading is a subjective experience, but, at a certain point, some things are black and white. It's attractive to say there are multiple interpretations to anything, but teasing that out to its end is just as bad as being a straight literalist.

Hi BC1980.

I actually wasn’t saying that there are different yet equally valid interpretations. (TheFinalWord may have misunderstood me.) I do agree that some kinds of reading can be a subjective experience; but, if, for example, one is trying to get a grip on ‘the zero-point field’, then we need to bring our full objectivity. However, how I interpret Jesus’ life example is that we need to ‘go within’ and not ignore our own intuitive sense or ‘inner’ impressions and experiences. So, I apply these as well.

Well, I believe that I also look for the deeper/hidden meanings, such as to study koine Greek to understand the context of the passages. However, and I mean no insult, what it sounds like you are proposing would require me to ignore the direct words of Christ.

For example, if I were to say, "Sally ran up the hill."

I could not be telling you to ignore the very words that we are talking about interpreting; so, no insult taken. .

Like you, I also want to have confidence in the English translation, so I’ve developed a preference for the Berean Bible versions, from which I take all my quotes. From the website for their Interlinear: The interlinear gloss is a word for word, Greek word order rendering based on the most reliable Greek sources. (Full disclosure: I also use an English translation of the Tanakh instead of just relying on Christian-based English translations for the Old Testament, and I refer to a KJV for both Testaments.)

That said, however, to me, using more and more versions of any already-translated-into-English language to confirm or reinterpret a different version of that same (already-translated-by-someone-else) language, is more likely to add layers of unnecessary complexity that can only carry a high risk of adding to our own obfuscation. (For sure I’d prefer to have the original Aramaic documents and to be highly fluent in Aramaic – because I think that translating is a rather subjective art as well as skill.)

One of my interpretations of both Jesus’ example and his words is that we need to use our intuition. [because.] He must have been getting his spiritual information, knowledge and perspective from somewhere, that caused him to disagree with a lot of the Jewish teachings, rituals and traditions of the time – which view and attitude is, of course, ultimately what got him killed – and I cannot think from where else but his own intuition?

I’m not really seeing any constructive point to using a sentence like, “Sally ran up the hill,” to try to reach higher spiritual knowledge and truths. (Not that there isn’t such an argument, only that *I* can’t see its usefulness or validity for this purpose.)

Taking something literally does not necessarily mean to ignore context. Taking something literally is often proffered as a negative, close minded view.[/Quote] I’d actually go even further and say that it is always necessary to be aware of and retain context. However, there are people who take things literally even when the context requires not only logic and reason but also one’s own subjective experience and intuition. For me, all Sacred/Spiritual texts fall into this category – again, based on my interpretation of Jesus’ own example and words.

I’m not sure that anyone would disagree that a close-minded view is negative, but I don’t think that taking things literally is in and of itself negative – to me, it depends on the topic at hand and/or on one’s true goals for studying or discoursing on the topic in the first place.

I was talking to a guy that is in divinity school to be an Episcopal priest, and he actually said he doesn't think it matters whether or not Jesus rose physically from the dead or there is life after death. I was kind of shocked at that. ... I don't see any other way to interpret the Gospels other than Jesus rose physically from the dead.
BC, I’m also not saying that there is nothing in the Bible that we cannot or should not take at face value. I do 100% believe that Jesus was arrested, tried, humiliated, tortured and crucified until he hung dead on the cross. I do believe that when they went to find his body in the tomb, it was not there. This, we Christians call the Resurrection of Christ. I think it happened this way, but then I choose to apply, to my best current abilities, my own spiritual knowledge, and logic and intuition, to come to some type of conclusion about whether or not it was a physical or a spiritual ‘event’.

Insofar as Jesus’ Ascension – a spiritually-significant ‘event’ that I think is too often ignored or minimized by far too many Christians – this one makes more sense to me than a physical resurrection...but only because I don’t, at present, believe that the spectrum or density of physical Matter in the Spiritual realms is the same as that found on Earth. That is, my own mind cannot wrap itself around the need for a dense-physical body in Heaven.

Thanks to you both, for allowing me to fix some of my own writings that were not clear. I’m not sure that this will be of any true help, but am willing to try again if there seems something more that might be useful.

December 3, 2017

Thanks for the reply!

One of my interpretations of both Jesus’ example and his words is that we need to use our intuition. [because.] He must have been getting his spiritual information, knowledge and perspective from somewhere, that caused him to disagree with a lot of the Jewish teachings, rituals and traditions of the time – which view and attitude is, of course, ultimately what got him killed – and I cannot think from where else but his own intuition?

The issue with this is He stated exactly where He got his information from. God the Father.

“If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day. For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken. I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”

We have to be careful about trusting our intuition as we have a sinful proclivity and tend to create our own ideas about what is right and wrong instead of conforming to God's law.

Every man's way is right in his own eyes, But the Lord weighs the hearts.

I’m not really seeing any constructive point to using a sentence like, “Sally ran up the hill,” to try to reach higher spiritual knowledge and truths. (Not that there isn’t such an argument, only that *I* can’t see its usefulness or validity for this purpose.)

The point of the illustration was to demonstrate that one does not need to create an abstract meaning of text, when the clear, plain meaning provides the simplest and more accurate representation. In science it's called Occum's razor. Go with the most parsimonious explanation unless proven otherwise. Christ clearly indicated His resurrected body was a physical body. There's no reason from the text to assume any differently. Therefore if I did anyway, I would not be gaining any new information, in fact I would be losing information about what occurred. For example, Jesus said in the passage above that we need to accept his words, that means taking a literal approach to His Words is the best choice to ensure I am fulfilling Christ's commandment.

I’m not sure that anyone would disagree that a close-minded view is negative, but I don’t think that taking things literally is in and of itself negative – to me, it depends on the topic at hand and/or on one’s true goals for studying or discoursing on the topic in the first place.

Literally just means taking the text as it was intended to be taken. That approach provides the clearest and most salient meaning of the text.

For example, when I read the text you are writing on me. I am reading it literally...I am taking your words as it appears to me you intend for them to be taken. That's the most straightforward, rational way to read any text.

Edited December 3, 2017 by TheFinalWord

December 3, 2017

Hi TheFinalWord,

It's a matter of either taking the Bible literally or seeking the deeper/hidden meanings. I accept also the Progressive Revelations of the Living Word.

Somewhere in this thread I've posted links to articles about the (Christian) Ritual of Holy Communion, and about the spiritual validity of 'blood sacrifice'.

Hey Ronnie - I guess from my side I see things similar to the final word. I'm not following how you connect the "literal" what happened with the metaphorical deeper "spiritual truth" that is being conveyed.

I see there as being both a "literal" story of what happened - but then I see the spiritual layer in which this literal physical occurrence was meant to convey and represent a deeper spiritual truth. This is of course exactly what a parable is. A simple story in human form meant to explain something spiritual.

For me my interpretation is very simple. Physical blood in the story of christ represents the life essence or "spirit" so to speak of god.

His death represents the "consequences of sin". Right moral action leads to "life". Wrong moral action leads to "death". His death was thus symbolic of taking on the consequences of others wrong moral actions to relieve them of this "deathly" burden. His "spilling blood" so to speak is simply a metaphorical representation of that. Him sacrificing his "spirit" to restore us. Then his subsequent resurrection shows that through his "spirit" those who have sinned are redeemed and restored. The transcend the consequences of their sin\mistakes through his grace and are born anew into "eternal life".

It is essentially one of the oldest narratives in literature and mythology. Death and rebirth. The phoenix rising from the ashes. So for me this is the "spiritual truth" I take from the physical story. It is the "born again story". The one who is reborn must go through a "metaphysical death". Dying to sin - reborn to "god".

"Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” “How can a man be born when he is old? Nicodemus asked. “Can he enter his mother’s womb a second time to be born?” Jesus answered “Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. "

I guess the thing I haven't understood from you is how you are connecting what physically happened - with what this was meant to represent spiritually. I may be completely wrong on this - but it seems like you want to change what physically happened so you can then adjust the "meaning" of the parable thus you are searching for alternative scriptures and translations. Can you explain to me exactly how you connect "what physically happened" with what it "spiritually represents". I think that would give me and also Finalword a better understanding of your view.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Justanaverageguy

December 30, 2017

For example, when I read the text you are writing on me. I am reading it literally...I am taking your words as it appears to me you intend for them to be taken. That's the most straightforward, rational way to read any text.

TFW, then you are not likely to ever grasp my full meaning, because I also use analogy, symbolism and similes as part of my verbal expression. If you take it literally...well... ...then you will run into the exact same problems as if you took Jesus’ parables literally. (We know that he was not actually referring to a physical-on-Earth wedding celebration, and bridegroom and guests, right? We know that there must be a deeper, hidden {esoteric} meaning behind his ‘literal’ words.) Equally so for, for example, ‘mustard seed’ and ‘camel through the eye of a needle’.

So, when I said, “It's a matter of either taking the Bible literally or seeking the deeper/hidden meanings,” I wasn’t actually talking about translations between Aramaic, Syrian or Koine Greek. I was saying, let’s start to think about what Jesus was actually alluding to – spiritually or at a spiritual/higher level – when he talked about a ‘bridegroom’ and a ‘bride’. (The words, ‘bridegroom’ and ‘bride’, themselves are going to be translated basically the same, even in Koine Greek, or Jesus’ language <which we can also call ‘Hebrew’>, or English.)

“How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked.

Have you read the The Gospel of Nicodemus (The Acts of Pontius Pilate)? In that same collection, you will find that ‘prodigal’ means ‘the son or daughter who left God’ – not someone who miraculously, and without merit, was redeemed by God.

TheFinalWord, I get that you see yourself as a student of Christian theology and doctrine, but, can we truly counsel Christians, as Barnabas would counsel, if we just always stay literal when it comes to interpreting Jesus’ sermons and teachings, and the New Testament and all the other apostles’ gospels, teachings and sermons?

BC1980’s doubt seems to me to be addressed in the epistle of Barnabas just mentioned. Jesus Christ came precisely to dispel such doubts, and to help BC1980 and all of the rest of us to come to the truth of the One True God. Would you, then, want to add to Christian doubt simply because of a predetermined (stubborn or prideful) position or view?

December 31, 2017

Have you read the The Gospel of Nicodemus (The Acts of Pontius Pilate)? In that same collection, you will find that ‘prodigal’ means ‘the son or daughter who left God’ – not someone who miraculously, and without merit, was redeemed by God.

TheFinalWord, I get that you see yourself as a student of Christian theology and doctrine, but, can we truly counsel Christians, as Barnabas would counsel, if we just always stay literal when it comes to interpreting Jesus’ sermons and teachings, and the New Testament and all the other apostles’ gospels, teachings and sermons?

BC1980’s doubt seems to me to be addressed in the epistle of Barnabas just mentioned. Jesus Christ came precisely to dispel such doubts, and to help BC1980 and all of the rest of us to come to the truth of the One True God. Would you, then, want to add to Christian doubt simply because of a predetermined (stubborn or prideful) position or view?

I have never heard of either of these, so I will check them out.

December 31, 2017

TheFinalWord, I get that you see yourself as a student of Christian theology and doctrine, but, can we truly counsel Christians, as Barnabas would counsel, if we just always stay literal when it comes to interpreting Jesus’ sermons and teachings, and the New Testament and all the other apostles’ gospels, teachings and sermons?

You can always look at deeper meanings, but that is predicated on having an accurate understanding of the basic meaning. You cannot arrive at valid deeper truths, if the most basic understanding is false. In other words, you cannot convey to me deeper understanding of Jesus' resurrection if you do not accept the basic truth that Jesus resurrection was physical.

January 2, 2018

In other words, you cannot convey to me deeper understanding of Jesus' resurrection if you do not accept the basic truth that Jesus resurrection was physical.

You state the obvious, my friend – and here I thought we were intellectually past that, by now! . On the other hand, if Jesus’ resurrection was NOT physical, then any understanding of it that is based on it having been physical will necessarily be wrong, won’t it?

(I don’t want to debate if it was or was not physical; I’m pointing out that all spiritual students need to be aware of other people’s primary worldview and will then be able to use critical analysis skills to recognize any inbuilt or inherent flaws in logic and arguments that arise from that worldview.)

If you read some of the Christian texts that are not included in the New Testament, for example, Letters of Herod and Pilate, denial of Jesus’ actual, physical resurrection seems, to me at least, to be more about resisting the truth. Even the signs surrounding Jesus’ moment of death on the cross must be seen in a new light, especially in view of the reports of ‘Charinus and Lenthius Recount their Experience upon being Raised from the Dead on Christ’s Resurrection’ (in The Gospel of Nicodemus, link in my previous post.)

You can always look at deeper meanings,

If we want to live a genuine, truly spiritual life – as Jesus himself taught it (or any of the other true prophets, for that matter) – then seeking the esoteric or deeper/hidden spiritual significance of their outer words is an imperative, not an option.

This is clear even if we just take one example from Barnabus’ epistle (link in my previous post):

“BUT why did Moses say, Ye shall not eat of the swine…? Answer: that in the spiritual sense, he comprehended three doctrines, that were to be gathered from thence.

“Be

sides which he says to them in the book of Deuteronomy, And I will give my statutes unto this people. Wherefore it is not the Command of God that they should not eat these things; but Moses in the spirit spake unto them.

“Now the sow he forbade them to eat;

m

eaning this much: thou shalt not join thyself to such persons as are like unto swine, who whilst they live in pleasure, forget their God

, but when any want pinches them, then they know the Lord; as the sow when she is full knows not her master, but when she is hungry she makes a noise, and being again fed, is silent.”

So, if people just take the original, “Ye shall not eat of the swine,” literally – and then the only thing they do for their spiritual progress is refrain from consuming any physical pig-meat products – well, surely you yourself can see the consequence. (No need for me to state the obvious. .)

To me, also, we now need to apply a new standard of critical analysis whenever there is mention of ‘milk’ and of ‘meat’ and of ‘eating’ in spiritual texts – what is the spiritual or inner or higher meaning (the ‘solid food’), because there is always such for ‘those with ears to hear and eyes to see’, which means those who are willing to go beyond just the physical/literal.

Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual, but as worldly—as infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for solid food. In fact, you are still not ready, for you are still worldly.

~ 1 Corinthians 3:2 [berean Study Bible]

There are many references to ‘weddings, wedding guests, bridegrooms and brides’ – and, for the ‘infants in Christ’, they won’t go further than it being about wearing nice clothes (‘wedding garments’) when we attend physical weddings; and they will treat all references to ‘lamps, oil and lamp-stands’ in exactly the same way – as it being only about physical/outer lighting.

But, if we want or hope to ever become mature in Christ, then it behooves us to seek a mature view of his teachings and of his Mission and life in general.

January 3, 2018

You state the obvious, my friend – and here I thought we were intellectually past that, by now! .

So, just to clarify, you are agreeing with me that Christ's resurrection was physical? I must have missed that.

January 3, 2018

So, just to clarify, you are agreeing with me that Christ's resurrection was physical? I must have missed that.

TFW, in my response to you, I said, “...denial of Jesus’ actual, physical resurrection seems, to me at least, to be more about resisting the truth.” And, in another post in this thread, I said, “I do believe that when they went to find [Jesus’] body in the tomb, it was not there. This, we Christians call the Resurrection of Christ. I think it happened this way, but then I choose to apply, to my best current abilities, my own spiritual knowledge, and logic and intuition, to come to some type of conclusion about whether or not it was a physical or a spiritual ‘event’.”

To clarify: I think/believe that Jesus’ physical body went in to the tomb and it was not physically there when Lady Magda and the others went to look for it. That is the physical aspect.

However, I don’t keep that as some separate, non-spiritual event from which I cannot learn something to help my own spiritual progress or becoming mature in Christ. I put it in context with the fact that, even before his crucifixion, Jesus could do marvelous things with his physical body and through his physical body. I do not yet understand the spiritual meaning of the transfiguration of Jesus’ physical body and/or how that event supported his ability to raise up his physical body from the tomb. I also see Jesus’ ascension as both a physical and a non-physical event – one second he could be physically seen and the next he could not, which accomplishment, we of course cannot help but see a reflection of, in the resurrection. (I do, of course, understand the outer words explaining the physical-manifested phenomena surrounding the transfiguration; hopefully you realize that’s not what I’m talking about.)

Thus, I don’t fixate on the resurrection or, for that matter, any single demonstration of Jesus’ personal Christhood. If we look for the true ‘milestones’ in Jesus’ life, then we can eventually come to see the ‘Spiritual Initiations in Matter’ that he passed and publicly demonstrated. My understanding is that we each, individually, also need to pass all of them, culminating in ‘the Initiation of the Ascension’. I am aware that a purely literal study of the outer words in the currently-accepted Christian texts, teachings and doctrines will not bring you to see this; nevertheless, I believe that we need an understanding of how we can face and pass these Initiations ourselves. Put another way, we need to eventually be able to ‘put on our own wedding garment’ so that we can be united with the ‘Bridegroom’. These are not spiritual or Divine Mysteries that we are forbidden to know, or cannot or should not know.

There are priests, ministers and others who see themselves as spiritually advanced, who nevertheless will try to shame, humiliate or belittle me into silence or to not ask questions that they haven’t yet properly answered for themselves – if they’d even considered it in the first place – so, like BC1980, I also have struggled with my own ‘issues’ of how and why and what kind of God would allow this type of world to exist. People who want to know the answer to that question, in a way that seems reasonable and rational and is thus acceptable also to the linear/outer mind, obviously cannot get there by blind (and deaf and mute) faith, alone. The good news is that this is not the type of faith that Jesus taught or came to bring – “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.”

January 3, 2018

For me my interpretation is very simple. Physical blood in the story of christ represents the life essence or "spirit" so to speak of god.

Justanaverageguy, Within a living physical body, our own physical blood may be associated with our own individual life-essence, yes – but, what has that to do with killing another human Being or spilling another human Being’s blood? (Even if you take Jesus as being one and the same as God, he still was in human form at the time of his murder/execution.)

If you accept that killing is against the Law of God, how do you reconcile that God must have desired, required or sanctioned the violation of God’s own Commandments for the killing of Jesus (or of God’s own human form, however you want to look at it) – just to give a gift to sinners including Lucifer and the Fallen Beings and their legions? Further, if killing Jesus/God and spilling his blood is a violation of the Law of God, how can this possibly, on any level, have been a spiritual act that might have or did result in anything spiritually constructive or positive?

It is essentially one of the oldest narratives in literature and mythology. Death and rebirth. The phoenix rising from the ashes. So for me this is the "spiritual truth" I take from the physical story. It is the "born again story". The one who is reborn must go through a "metaphysical death". Dying to sin - reborn to "god".[/Quote]It is a false teaching – designed to control people and keep them in spiritual ignorance and in a state of blind, mute and passive faith – that Jesus’ crucifixion-and-resurrection was God’s gift to sinners so that we do not need to do our own ‘dying to sin’ and ‘being reborn in God’. The spiritual truth is that we have to qualify ourselves to face and pass these Initiations ourselves. Jesus did not do it for us – or we would no longer need to embody on Earth; we would have transcended the Wheel of Birth and Rebirth.

Yes, it is a ‘born again’ story – which is the same as ‘a prodigal child returns’ story – but it is that we each individually need to return to God by ourselves, by our own path. We have to do the work ourselves; Jesus did not do it for us. (I don’t really understand a need to have had Jesus do it for us. I suppose it could be fear and unwillingness to take full spiritual responsibility for one’s own redemption and salvation – maybe fear of being unable to do that, than not being willing to personally do the work?)

...it seems like you want to change what physically happened so you can then adjust the "meaning" of the parable thus you are searching for alternative scriptures and translations.[/Quote]So...I’m not really sure what physical events, in the life and times of Jesus, it comes across that I want to change. I’m even more confused when you say that I want to “adjust the ‘meaning’ of the parable” – whose meaning, whose parable, and what parable??? (And, even if you say the pope’s, doesn’t mean that I don’t get to adjust his meaning of his parable however I want to! .)

As I already said to TFW, alternative translations only give a generally same overview of a word or passage. And, why not alternative scriptures when we are seeking spiritual truths? Bhuddism and Manichaeism (for but two examples) have as much to offer as the Christian texts. Most assuredly, though, I do not limit myself only to ancient and centuries-old documents – I do also accept expressions of the Living Word, although I am selective about current-day messengers (which, if I’m not mistaken, you have mentioned at least one whom you yourself follow – is it also in an attempt to “adjust the ‘meaning’ of the parable”?)

As BC1980 expressed, when we are trying to make sense of death and suffering on this planet, the answer is not always available in only one or another form, or religion, or area of study – to me, there is nothing wrong with keeping an open mind and a more dynamic worldview that can change to accommodate new scientific facts or spiritual insights as they come into our awareness – while at the same time being willing to reconsider and eliminate what is clearly non-constructive or potentially holding back our own spiritual growth and progress

In Light and Love.

January 4, 2018

First up - happy new year all. Hope you had a wonderful start to 2018 Now on to the discussion .....

It is a false teaching – designed to control people and keep them in spiritual ignorance and in a state of blind, mute and passive faith – that Jesus’ crucifixion-and-resurrection was God’s gift to sinners so that we do not need to do our own ‘dying to sin’ and ‘being reborn in God’. The spiritual truth is that we have to qualify ourselves to face and pass these Initiations ourselves. Jesus did not do it for us – or we would no longer need to embody on Earth; we would have transcended the Wheel of Birth and Rebirth. Yes, it is a ‘born again’ story – which is the same as ‘a prodigal child returns’ story – but it is that we each individually need to return to God by ourselves, by our own path. We have to do the work ourselves; Jesus did not do it for us. (I don’t really understand a need to have had Jesus do it for us. I suppose it could be fear and unwillingness to take full spiritual responsibility for one’s own redemption and salvation – maybe fear of being unable to do that, than not being willing to personally do the work?)

So like I said earlier I don't disagree that some sections of the christian church misunderstand the teaching but I wouldn't call it completely false. If you read Jesus words - the scripture itself is pure. Claiming that "jesus did all the work" is misguided and he never said any such thing. Of course we still need to do our part which he spoke of numerous times. But I do believe Jesus actions were necessary to provide a new avenue - a new path to god that previously didn't exist. This is what many (I would say most) christian teachings speak of. That being a kind of spiritual intervention\redemption - where by the spirit of god directly enters a sinner and restores them both physically and spiritually. I already mentioned earlier how this is something I experienced personally. While running off on the wrong the path - being directly entered by the holy spirit and restored and brought back to the fold. With out this avenue many would be spiritually lost.

My view is Jesus physical life provided the avenue for this to occur. His laying down his physical life - was necessary for him to be able to perform the same with his "spiritual body" which he sacrifices for this restoration to occur. This is how I view the purpose of his life - to provide this avenue. Once restored however ..... the work still falls to us to use our second chance wisely. Life is perpetual - thus the gift of eternal life is not something that you earn once for eternity. It must be continually earned again - and again - and again. There is no saved forever - but there is a lost forever and jesus life and actions provided a safety net so to speak.

So...I’m not really sure what physical events, in the life and times of Jesus, it comes across that I want to change. I’m even more confused when you say that I want to “adjust the ‘meaning’ of the parable” – whose meaning, whose parable, and what parable??? (And, even if you say the pope’s, doesn’t mean that I don’t get to adjust his meaning of his parable however I want to! .)

Well from what I have read your view seemed to go against Jesus words regarding the new covenant. You stated on numerous occasions that personal karma must be balanced by the individual and there is no possibility for others to intervene. EG:

"How I interpret it is that we must settle our own spiritual or karmic debts down to the last ‘jot and stroke of pen’; it’s our responsibility and we must do it personally, individually. "

My view based on personal experience and the words of Jesus in the NT is that he came with a new convenant. One that superseeds the "old law". This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. Jesus told the exact same parable many different ways - over and over again to try to convey the message he came for. The born again parable - the prodigal son parable - the lost sheep parable - the good shephard parable - the barren fig and the vinyard keeper parable. Its the exact same story on repeat in different metaphorical forms - and his own physical life tells the exact same story. Jesus\God sacrifices himself and puts you on his shoulders and carries you - fertilizes the ground around you - restores your "money" that you wastedon sinful actions - refills you lantern when you have wasted all the oil. Otherwise you would have been lost. This was the new covenant - a new agreement not previously available. It goes above and beyond the previous law of personal karma which was all that was previously available.

He directly spoke to the differences between the old law - that of karma - and his "new covenant" that of spiritual restoration of sinners through the parable of the wine skins.

"And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better."

Here he states that the old method - that of following Karmic law of our own accord is the best and purest method. But he comes a new path a new covenant - new wine. Available to sinners to restore them. If one can follow the old path - it is preferable to the later which requires restoration through him. Basically we have covered this ground already. I see Jesus life as the embodyment of this parable and my understanding is so does the majority of the christian church. You advocate for the "old wine" as well you should. But Jesus came with new wine for those who couldn't manage this and just quitely - even if you think you can ..... its pretty good to know you have him at your back should you make some serious errors as I did.

As I already said to TFW, alternative translations only give a generally same overview of a word or passage. And, why not alternative scriptures when we are seeking spiritual truths? Bhuddism and Manichaeism (for but two examples) have as much to offer as the Christian texts. Most assuredly, though, I do not limit myself only to ancient and centuries-old documents – I do also accept expressions of the Living Word, although I am selective about current-day messengers (which, if I’m not mistaken, you have mentioned at least one whom you yourself follow – is it also in an attempt to “adjust the ‘meaning’ of the parable”?) As BC1980 expressed, when we are trying to make sense of death and suffering on this planet, the answer is not always available in only one or another form, or religion, or area of study – to me, there is nothing wrong with keeping an open mind and a more dynamic worldview that can change to accommodate new scientific facts or spiritual insights as they come into our awareness – while at the same time being willing to reconsider and eliminate what is clearly non-constructive or potentially holding back our own spiritual growth and progress

Sure absolutely agree and yes your correct - I also follow other teachings as well But I think the new teachings need to be "compatible" with what we already know to be true - so as always we need to be careful when judging new teachings which I'm sure you are. As Jesus said "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves". The rule of thumb is as jesus stated always to judge a tree by the fruit it bears. See the lives of the teacher and the people that follow the teaching ..... see if they are truly producing "good fruit" and asses based on this.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Justanaverageguy

January 4, 2018

Hello Ronni,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Happy New Year to you and average guy!

TFW, in my response to you, I said, “...denial of Jesus’ actual, physical resurrection seems, to me at least, to be more about resisting the truth.” And, in another post in this thread, I said, “I do believe that when they went to find [Jesus’] body in the tomb, it was not there. This, we Christians call the Resurrection of Christ. I think it happened this way, but then I choose to apply, to my best current abilities, my own spiritual knowledge, and logic and intuition, to come to some type of conclusion about whether or not it was a physical or a spiritual ‘event’.”
To clarify: I think/believe that Jesus’ physical body went in to the tomb and it was not physically there when Lady Magda and the others went to look for it. That is the physical aspect.

Thank you for clarifying. When you said earlier, you thought we were past this, the above response is why I wanted clarity. What I mean by physical resurrection is different than what you mean by a physical resurrection. Both in terms of what a physical resurrection means, but also its significance to the core tenants of Christianity. But that is okay, we just have a disagreement here, hence the purpose of this forum!

I believe Christ's interaction with Thomas and the disciples after his resurrection, for example, is critical to understanding not only what Christ's resurrection means, but also it clarifies all of the old testament prophecies about the resurrection of the dead at the end of time.

Thus, I don’t fixate on the resurrection or, for that matter, any single demonstration of Jesus’ personal Christhood.

I believe they are important as the miracles Christ accomplished legitimized his claim as Messiah. For example, the feeding of the 5000. The Jews at that time knew immediately what that miracle meant. Moses fed the Jews with manna, and what Christ fed them with was greater than manna. Hence, what I mean about the literal and the spiritual. Christ literally fed the 5000 with actual food. But he also implied a spiritual lesson that the real manna was his body, which was sacrificed for our sins. He also clarified the spiritual meaning of the miracle through his teachings (e.g. bread of life). He even ordained communion to help us remember the physical act of his death (the passion) and pouring out of his blood.

If we look for the true ‘milestones’ in Jesus’ life, then we can eventually come to see the ‘Spiritual Initiations in Matter’ that he passed and publicly demonstrated. My understanding is that we each, individually, also need to pass all of them, culminating in ‘the Initiation of the Ascension’.

I don't believe that Christ's resurrection is meant to transmit to us that we are undergoing our own initiation of the ascension.

There are priests, ministers and others who see themselves as spiritually advanced, who nevertheless will try to shame, humiliate or belittle me into silence or to not ask questions that they haven’t yet properly answered for themselves – if they’d even considered it in the first place – so, like BC1980, I also have struggled with my own ‘issues’ of how and why and what kind of God would allow this type of world to exist.

I am sorry you have experienced that. A true minister should know that they are not spiritually advanced. The only insight they have is due to what little revelation God has revealed to them. All good they accomplish is not through their own power or "spiritual advancement". It is accomplished only by God the Father working through them. All of our good works are as filthy rags before the Lord. We are only justified by grace in the sacrifice of Christ, as evidenced by His physical resurrection (proving that he defeated death, e.g. nor did his body see decay, Psalms 16:10; Acts 13:35), not good works. One area I do agree with you is that we should not put our faith in man. If we start putting a pastor or minister on a pedestal above Christ, we will be disappointed. They are sinners saved by grace.

“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.”

Thanks for that verse Ronni! Anyway, I am starting to feel a bit bad as I don't want you to think I am ganging up on you. However, if you want to perhaps discuss, maybe we could start a new thread? I also don't want to hijack BC1980's thread...

Edited January 4, 2018 by TheFinalWord

January 4, 2018

Anyway, I am starting to feel a bit bad as I don't want you to think I am ganging up on you. However, if you want to perhaps discuss, maybe we could start a new thread? I also don't want to hijack BC1980's thread...

TFW, I actually think that our discussions are remaining on-topic (whereas I felt that Justanaverageguy and I were going off on tangents). However, BC1980, if you would rather have these more recent posts moved to a new thread, please do not feel badly about asking the mods to do that.

TFW, I don’t feel ‘ganged-up on’ by you - I appreciate being able to share our views.

> what a physical resurrection means, but also its significance to the core tenants of Christianity...
> I believe [the resurrection and other demonstrations of Jesus’ personal Christhood] are important...
> I don't believe that Christ's resurrection is meant to transmit to us that we are undergoing our own initiation of the ascension.[/Quote] To be honest, I’d never considered that ‘physical resurrection’ could mean other than ‘physical resurrection’ – but I’m happy to expand my view on that, if needed. For me, Lazarus also went through a physical resurrection, but perhaps others don’t see it that way – from your perspective, does there need to be a physical etherealization or ‘dematerialization’ of all the physical atoms and electrons that make up the physical body (as happened with Jesus’ physical body) for it to be what you mean by ‘physical resurrection’? (Without going into a whole ‘everything-is-Energy-and-Energy-cannot-be-destroyed’ discussion, that’s the crux of my view on this.)

I agree with you – wholeheartedly and 100% - that all of Jesus’ ministry, up to his ascension and including his ‘miracles’ and resurrection, are important. For me they are important for our individual, personal spiritual learning and progress. Certainly his resurrection does not speak to us about the Initiation of the Ascension; his actual ascension does that. His resurrection demonstrates the Initiation of Resurrection. Both Initiations form part of the process of us ‘being born again in God’ or ‘returning Home to God’, that Justanaverageguy mentions.

(Just to be clear: It’s not that we are facing either one of these Initiations right now; most of us still have a long way to go before we will be spiritually qualified to face them.)

Life is perpetual - thus the gift of eternal life is not something that you earn once for eternity. It must be continually earned again - and again - and again. There is no saved forever - but there is a lost forever
Our spiritual life is perpetual, yes; our ‘Soul’ needs to be ever-transcending. But this is not the same as: once we have reached our personal ascension point, we can permanently rise above the need to re-embody in the material world of form – or, put another way, if we understand and truly follow Jesus’ teachings and admonishments, then we can free ourselves from the cycle of suffering, death and rebirth. There are unascended Beings and Ascended Beings. Any of the latter can, of course, always ‘fall’ again – as Lucifer did – but we are still so far below that (level of consciousness) that it need not be a concern at this point.

Being ‘lost to God forever’ entails a Lifestream or Spiritual Being choosing for itself what, in The Book of Revelation, is called the Second Death. To my present understanding, if we ever get to that point, it will be a very conscious decision on our part, so, again, nothing to fear at this point.

You and I have a very different understanding of the ‘new wine and wineskins’ parable. If you want to take it as you no longer needing to personally balance your own negative Karma, then that is your free-will spiritual decision to make. If you also follow some Bhuddist practices (which, if I’m not mistaken, you do), then I’m sure that you have reconciled, to your full satisfaction, all the differences between Christian teachings on Karma and Bhuddist teachings on the same – or, if not yet, are still working on such a reconciliation.

> But I think the new teachings need to be "compatible" with what we already know to be true -
> The rule of thumb is as jesus stated always to judge a tree by the fruit it bears. See the lives of the teacher and the people that follow the teaching ..... see if they are truly producing "good fruit"[/Quote] My personal motto is, “I don’t know what I don’t know.” It helps to keep me humble, and stops me from getting into spiritual pride and arrogance of thinking that I already know what is and is not spiritually true; by which I mean: true IN CHRIST and true IN GOD, not ‘true amongst men’ or according to what human Beings want to be or tell themselves actually is (spiritually, or, for that matter, scientifically) true.

As TheFinalWord pointed out, if you start off with a false premise for your basic ‘truth’, then you cannot help but be misled and misguided from there; you cannot have true Christ Discernment, and thus you will not be able to properly/accurately assess who, IN THE EYE OF GOD, is and is not producing ‘good fruit’.

I am sorry you have experienced that.
Thanks, TFW. I think that all serious spiritual students experience the same thing, though. There are many, at all levels of creation, who would not see the Light of Christ on Earth, so persecution is just part of the Path of Personal Christhood – as Jesus himself will attest to! .

I never doubted the concept of free will until I realized that I couldn't will myself to believe in God or Jesus.
BC, it can indeed be a quandary and a challenge! . So far as wanting to, in a sense, ‘force’ yourself to believe in any concept, idea or image about which your heart and/or your mind is telling you, “This isn’t right/proper,” or even, “This isn’t God-like or Christ-like” – to me, it is a better, more constructive thing to heed your own Inner/Intuitive Voice and follow where and how it directs.

It also may (or may not?) help to think of your will power as functioning separately from your free will, the latter being a bit more complex than we may think – which I myself only found out in more recent years, when I was still mightily struggling with my own questions and anger at God, or, at least, at my own concept/version/image of ‘God the Creator’, at that time.
I don’t know if you follow current authors/messengers – if not, just ignore this next bit, please. For me, I found articles such as are available on this page on Free Will, very helpful to start to turn my thinking around. Not that it stopped being a struggle...only that it got better over time and with my leaving no stone unturned as I continued plugging away at it.

Thanks again, BC, and all contributors to this thread; and wishing you much joy and attainment on your own path.

Want to believe in God but can't

Recommended Posts

Ronni_W

Link to post

Share on other sites

Justanaverageguy

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ronni_W

Link to post

Share on other sites

Justanaverageguy

Link to post

Share on other sites

Justanaverageguy

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ronni_W

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ronni_W

Link to post

Share on other sites

TheFinalWord

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ronni_W

Link to post

Share on other sites

TheFinalWord

Link to post

Share on other sites

BC1980

Link to post

Share on other sites

TheFinalWord

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ronni_W

Link to post

Share on other sites

TheFinalWord

Link to post

Share on other sites

Justanaverageguy

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ronni_W

Link to post

Share on other sites

BC1980

Link to post

Share on other sites

TheFinalWord

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ronni_W

Link to post

Share on other sites

TheFinalWord

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ronni_W

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ronni_W

Link to post

Share on other sites

Justanaverageguy

Link to post

Share on other sites

TheFinalWord

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ronni_W

Link to post

Share on other sites

What's New

My Activity Streams

More...