cunninglily

Absolutely! I would go even further and say we do more than just fail to appreciate it: we often deliberately choose to repress and reject it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would agree with this too...but I don't think we fail to appreciate this because of our "humanness". I think it is precisely in our humanness that we can appreciate it...though granted, not as long as our vision stays "clouded". There are passages in the Bible that suggest that the "carnal mind" can not perceive the things of God; that even if we "hear we do not hear". While the "material" or "carnal" realm keeps us in bondage to the "things of this World", in other words, as long as we believe that only those things that we can perceive with the senses is real, we are unable to perceive reality in its completeness. We can say that there is no separation between the mundane and the divine and even believe it...but to PERCEIVE it requires a transformation of consciousness. It seems clear to me that the Early Church (before the great orthodoxy/heresy split in the fourth century) was an initiatory church, which means that there was a formal acknowledgment of "stages" of initiation, levels of awareness and understanding, and that not every one perceived even the same teaching from the same perceptual level. We understand according to our perception of reality and can understand no deeper or higher than we can perceive. We can acknowledge thoughts or ideas concerning higher or deeper things, but we can not KNOW until we can perceive. The things of God seem "foolishness" to the carnal mind according to scripture. Certainly the idea that we are both divine and human seems foolish to those immersed in a material perception of reality, and even to those of us who have realized that we are not our bodies or personalities, it seems beyond comprehension that we too share in the divinity of Christ...at least potentially, if not actually. (although I think we do actually) This same perceptual *block* prevents us from grokking to the idea that Jesus Christ could have been Divine within His Humanness. The tendency is to either/or it to death; either Jesus was God or Jesus was Man, and, of course, the majority of Christians consider it a heresy to state that Jesus was exactly like us or we like Him and that His Destiny is our own. What is interesting to me is the fact that prior to the fourth century, way back in ancient times, in Persian and Greek culture particularly, the idea of mortal man becoming immortalized; the idea of "Heros", which had a depth of meaning that has since been lost; the idea that there are those who penetrate "behind the veil" and enter Eternity while "in the flesh" was not unusual. We have since lost this sense of Mans nobility and great potential and destiny and no longer know who we are. Even those of us who know that we are loved and forgiven and "children" of God can not seem to grow beyond that to a full realization of what it means to become "full-grown Sons". We tend to think that becoming "full-grown Sons" means maturity in a very pedestrian sense, while the Bible and other records stresses that we will appear "Fools" to those who can not yet perceive reality in its completeness. There are also interesting and pertinent thoughts available out there regarding *when* Jesus became the Son of God. There is a scripture, for instance, stated in reference to Jesus's baptism by John. The most accepted translation of the scripture, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" is believed by some to have been altered from "This is my beloved Son, on this day have I begotten thee" to support orthodox doctrine. This, of course, suggests that Jesus was "born again"...a heretical thought I know, but what can I say? lily

But consider what stands between Jesus God Incarnate (or Jesus as "God as a baby") and Jesus the enlightened man. Isn't it Jesus, fully divine and fully human? In fact, you said so yourself in the post that kicked this discussion back in gear. This Jesus would be a paradigm; a Pattern Son, a Wayshower, an Awakener; a Son of Light; One who realized His Divinity while "in the flesh" and revealed The Way for those who are called to realize their own double nature and to make the "two One". You don't lose "levels of meaning" and you don't reject the divine aspect of Jesus either, nor do you have to throw away your "scientific standpoint" from this perspective. There is a middle way between Jesus is God and Jesus is not God. There is Jesus, the Anointed Son of God, become One with the Father, or Jesus Christ is Lord. The problem is always that if Jesus is God then He could not have been mere man or if Jesus was fully man then He could not have been God. But what if the solution is right there in our understanding or not understanding of what man is? what humanity is? I don't have these things figured out...I do not understand any of this perfectly...I am searching. But I have a suspicion that WE are the key that we keep searching for, and I am more and more convinced that until we know who we are we can not know who Jesus is. lily

"Physicists have ‘proved’ rationally that our rational ideas about the world in which we live are profoundly deficient”. Gary Zukav We need discernment. I no longer assume that because I don't or haven't experienced something that it can not occur or exist. We simply don't know everything. We can not even be sure that what we *see* as reality *is* reality, and can be reasonably sure that what we do see of reality is not all there is. A *miracle* then, would only be some portion of reality visible or accessible that is not ordinarily perceived or accessed. Already there are those who heal "energetically"; who intuit disharmony in the body and literally diagnose by way of perception. Is this not "miraculous"? Is it not then possible that someone could so perceive reality from a mind/matter understanding that enables them to literally walk on water? I believe it is possible, and I believe that modern science bears this out. So, though I agree that scripture is profitably understood as a "type" of what happens inwardly; a history of the transformation of the inner man...I do believe that this transformation ultimately makes possible "the greater things" that we shall accomplish, and that these things shall appear *miraculous* to those who can not yet perceive. just thoughts, lily

Well, I think you're on to something Fred...which should be clear from other things I have posted here. We, along with Jesus, are born both of woman and of the Spirit, both truly divine and truly human, and it is IN this position, a paradoxical position, in a paradoxical reality, that we both enter the Kingdom of God and usher in the reign of the Kingdom of God on Earth. I don't think we can enter the Kingdom of God after we die, though I won't go into what I believe happens after we die here, but that it is AS a living breathing human being that we enter necessarily. The "cross" as symbol can be seen to typify this paradoxical position betwixt and between our divine heritage and our material manifestation. This is the intuited gist of my repeated use of the word "mediator" to describe the function of humanity in the purposes of God. We are "crucial" as humanity in manifesting the Will of God to all creation as Christs or Anointed Sons of God. That all humanity is already positioned thus, I believe with all my heart. It's who or what humanity is *naturally*. I believe that The Way as demonstrated in Christ Jesus develops this consciousness within us...though I would not deny that others who follow another revelation can not realize who and what they are or who and what humanity is... but I, as a Christian, believe that Jesus Christ exemplified this reality in a unique and critically important way. lily

I hear what you're saying... and I apologize for being all fancy schmancy paradoxical... it's just that we don't know what we can do as fully manifested Sons of God...not yet. So, I hesitate to say that miracles do not and can not happen...or that we know all there is to know concerning "physical laws". On the other hand, yes, I agree with you. The greater part of scripture is profitable for instructing us in the events that take place within the inner man as she struggles to enter the Kingdom of God. In fact, I just read something today in my studies written by Moses Maimonides...let me see if I can find it... "Every time that you find in our books a tale the reality of which seems impossible, a story which is repugnant to both reason and common sense, then be sure that the tale contains a profound allegory veiling a deeply mysterious truth; and the greater the absurdity of the letter, the deeper the wisdom of the spirit". lily

Yes, but we reason according to Principles that do not change. This does not mean that it is not incumbent upon us to *hear* the Holy Spirit with an open and loosened mind, but that there are certain Laws or Principles in effect within which intuition has free rein to judge all things. In other words des, there is nothing new under the sun. If you plant an oak will you grow figs? Love can be applied to any situation, as can Justice and Mercy, Wisdom and Understanding...Reason and Intuition and so on. But, there is an Order in things and we can discern it and live with true freedom within it. We are not without guidelines. I don't believe we bounce from lawnessness to legislation, but within the discernable Laws of God, which are undeviating. I don't support attempts to "legislate righteousness". I believe we as religious should teach through the testimony of our own lives the undeviating Justice of Gods Law. Otherwise, "he who has not sinned can cast the first stone." My own conviction is that abortion, as an example, is the fruit of misunderstanding Divine Law. It's the fruit of another root problem, which is our not understanding the Law of Procreation and of the sacredness of sexuality, which is essentially rooted in our not knowing who we are. I myself do not fully understand it yet...so, how can I condemn those who do not understand it at all? Nevertheless, I believe that the consequences of going against Divine Law are sure, and as I wrote in another post, not as punishment, but as herewegoagain back to first principles and another lesson. But I deem it hypocritical to inflict law on others when I can not offer better in its place. Until we understand Divine Law and LIVE it and are able to manifest the fruits of it for the nourishment of the world...we restrict the rights of others to live according to their *lights* unjustly and to no avail. Just my two cents... lily

welcome lucid. consider that "physical events" and events "that occur in the soul" are not separate; that they happen upon a continuum, web-like, so that if you tremble any part, the whole web trembles. consider then that 'events that occur in the soul" are just as *real* as those that manifest as "physical events", and that the one gives "birth" to the other. maybe trying to decide either/or is not necessary. lily

"...the claim of Jesus that the teachings of The Way was the Ultimate Truth which was Universal to all of mankind the world over, was based upon the core reality that these sacred teachings embraced a process of transformation that LITERALLY GUARANTEED RESULTS. An important element to the process was based upon the knowledge that when one of the Laws and Tenets of God’s Royal Law was violated by any man or woman, that their action would invoke an appropriate response in the opposite direction that would eventually correct the flaw which caused the violation of Law. Men of wisdom had long pointed out that when those who were invited to the Marriage celebration had not put on the robe of perfection, they were cast into the "outer darkness" (Mt 8:12;22:13;25:13) -- NOT SO MUCH AS PUNISHMENT, but as a means to bring about the perfection of the individual." We can never place ourselves outside the Love of God. Nor does the Father ever wash His Hands of any one of us. EVERYTHING is PROCESS. Nor does the Father punish; it is our own actions and non-actions that result in consequences which the Father "uses" for our ultimate good and salvation. In the Major Arcana of the Tarot, two *keys*, or cards, in particular, symbolize this Principle. The first key of the 22 Major Arcana is the Fool, attributed to the Hebrew letter Alef, which translated means "ox". The Fool is a symbol of your True Self or Eternal Self; that Self which was "known" before you were placed in your earthly mothers womb. The eleventh key of the Major Arcana is Justice, attributed to the Hebrew letter Lamed, which translated means "ox-goad". In other words, the principle of Justice is Gods *ox-goad*. The "Builders of the Adytum", with whom I study, instructs regarding the Justice key, to recognize the "unfailing Justice in all the circumstances of our lives." Everything we are in belongs to us. Every circumstance of our lives is a result of the unerring principle of Gods Justice, and all is to bring us to perfection in Christ. Therefore, God does not punish; He instructs and disciplines, just as any loving parent. lily

Well, don't be impressed. I assure you that I do not speak only when the Spirit moves me to speak. There are just times when I know to be quiet even if I don't know why. lily

Oh no no, Aletheia, not at all. My quiet is not a reaction to you. I did not feel that you were being argumentative in the least. I always look forward to your posts. No worries lily

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> sorry in taking so long to get back to you Aletheia. I've actually composed two separate posts since yesterday and decided against sending either one of them. I just want to say that the emphasis, imo, is not on the "few" or the "many" but on the fact that we are all called to be sons of God. That's the main thing. I don't know if any of you will relate to what I'm about to say...but sometimes I get what we "non-denominationals" call a "stop in my spirit"...or, if you prefer, a voice of conscience telling me to be quiet. I'm endeavoring to obey. lily

The way I understand it currently is this: Our *spirits* are regenerated at our conversion; a "new spirit" is awakened within us. This *salvation* is without repentence and this regenerated *spirit* is what informs and guides the "working out of our salvation" in the "salvation of soul" and "salvation of body". Our regenerated spirit equips us to work our spiritual salvation *outward* so that it manifests in the soul realm (our personalities and identities) and ultimately into the material realm or *body* (which you all know by now I believe to include the Land or Earth as our bodies are *one flesh* with the Earth and ALL is the Lords Body). So, essentially, salvation is a process, "line upon line, precept upon precept" until our regenerated spirits brings us to full manifestation of Gods glory or to the full manifestation of the Sons of God. Salvation of spirit is a gift of grace and requires no "works", but only faith to receive. The other two, my friends, must be "worked out with fear and trembling", for "strait is the gate and narrow the way and few their be that find it". To progress pass the "salvation of spirit" into full manifestation requires "being in the world, but not of it", "laying down our lives", and "dying before you die", so that it is "no longer you who live, but Christ that lives in you", and "many are called, but few are chosen". It is my belief that the "early church" was an initiatory church. That not all were taught the same things, but each according to where they were in "process". The "orthodox" church, thinking these things too difficult, attempted to stop process at our initial salvation and to refute that any among us could go on to fully manifest as a "son of God", and called this doctrine or teaching heresy. Now we look at scriptures such as "and greater things shall you do" and wonder what in the world He could have meant. It is my belief that He meant exactly what He said. The tabernacle is a pattern or type of the inner world of man. The "outer court" is where we all enter through the salvation of spirit. But we are not meant to stay in the outer court but to push on into the "inner court" or the "salvation of our souls" and then ultimately we push on into the "most holy place" and the full manifestation of Sonship. How does this "sit" with you guys? One of the problems with this teaching is that we are not accustomed to thinking in terms of "some" of us advancing farther along the "Way" than others. Our egos don't like this much. Some of the early Church fathers didn't like it much either and so attempted to keep us all in the "outer court" and from "entering in", or deeper in. But the scripture is clear. The "many" are called or receive the salvation of spirit by grace, but "few" are chosen ie few are those who press in unto the salvation of soul, and by logical extension, as there is no "fooling God", fewer still who press on into the full manifestation of Sonship. I look forward to hearing your thoughts, lily

If I understand your question correctly...then, yes, I believe that spirit is distinct from soul. I would use the Hebrew etymology....nephesh = soul, ruach = spirit. I believe in an eternal spirit, not an eternal soul...which is why, I suppose, I have problems with "channeling" and individuals claiming the personalities of those who have "passed" into the underworld through reincarnation. I believe that the "soul" is the seat of personality and that this is not eternal. This passes away with the flesh at death. The "salvation of the soul" is therefore this worldly...it comes to those "who die before they die" and ushers in the Christ nature in this life. I also believe that the "salvation of the body" is this worldly; that our bodies are actually and literally changed by the "renewing of the mind" and in a particularly "religious" view of evolution, I believe that the 'changed bodies" of the "faithful"....evolve the body of humanity in general (our thoughts literally evolve our bodies) and All of Creation Herself. I believe that the "faithful" experience the Kingdom of God in their own flesh. Sort of a Christians view of Rupert Sheldrakes "morphogenetic fields". Are these my thoughts? Hardly. I believe the Bible points us in this direction. But they may be a personal compilation of thought, my own sense of things, certainly...or, my own interpretation if you prefer. lily

You know what darby? I actually consider myself quite conservative as regards doctrine. I do not support an "anything goes Christianity" at all. What separates the orthodox from the unorthodox is the question of authority. The unorthodox want to obey God and not men as the scriptures teach. That does not mean that we do not have teachers or those in "the Way" who have progressed farther along who can point us in the right direction. It means (at least to me) that Christ in us is the ultimate authority and not man. It is my belief that the role of the Pope in the RCC is actually the role given to all who are called in Christ; that one man, chosen much in the same way as we choose political leaders, is NOT the only mediator between God and the creation; that ALL the sons of God are called to be mediators of Gods Will. For those of us who are "babes in Christ", the Church is a good mother and Her milk nourishes our growth. But we are supposed to grow up into full grown Sons weaned from the Tit. This does not mean that we have to leave the Church at any point (or shouldn't), only that the Church needs to realize that the "milk" of the simple faith: Christ Crucified, Repentance from dead works, baptisms and etc only take the developing Christian so far. It is my belief that many of us leave the Church because we are starving to death. We are ready for more solid food and keep being told that the "milk" should be enough. Some of us turn to other traditions outside Christianity to taste a bit of "herb", a bit of "strong-meat", but this should not be so IMO. All the nourishment we'll ever need is found in Christ. The problem is that the Churches' don't want "full-grown" sons. (and this is not just a RCC problem either...the non-denominationals may even be worse in my experience.) Full-grown sons are not so easy to handle. And not just the "Churches" either, but our own "brethren" will hold us back, because heaven forbid that any of us should grow beyond the common denominator Christian walk. As Jesus is reported to have said, "Your enemies will be those in your own Household". When I first joined this site I mentioned that I believe in a tripartite salvation: salvation of spirit (the outer court), salvation of soul (the inner court) and salvation of the body (the most holy place). I believe this corresponds with "milk", "herbs", and "strong meat", as it does with "the called", "the chosen" and "the faithful". The problem with most Christian churches is that they stop at "milk" for the "called"....which is salvation of spirit by grace, the "once saved always saved" doctrine. But this is not the end of the matter. lily

Great story!, but the damnedest thing...I thought about this very scripture all day today. What brought it on was an encounter with a website authored by a guy who claims to be James, the Apostle, Brother of Jesus reincarnate. And I'm thinking...why? do we need to be James or Jesus or Alexander the Great? Why is it that we don't recognize the incredible place in Gods Purpose that the human race serves, and not as angels, not as disembodied spirits, but as flesh and blood? Didn't he say "and greater works than these shall YOU do,..."? I have many thoughts on this and absolutely no time right now... but I'll be back, lily

Lets do it. You do the honors Lolly, if you don't mind...or anyone with a cogent thought. I've got company now but I will be back. lily

"In a Spiritual Church such as that which Jesus ordained, the focus is not on the believer holding the proper set of beliefs, or a hierarchy of priests -- because the source and authority is spiritual, and remains above and beyond the physical world. The beliefs of each person are therefore seen as a product of the individual's stage of spiritual development, and are in accordance with the individual person's condition in relation to man's spiritual reality. Because each person is at a different level of spiritual awareness, fixed creeds and dogma are a detriment to a truly spiritual religion." I ran across this while studying on-line this morning and thought it pertinent to this thread. To give a bit of context in which this paragraph was found, it is necessary to state that the author gives emphasis to Paul's use of the words "milk", "herbs" and "strong meat" as pertaining to depths of teaching revealed in Christ. "Babes in Christ" are given "milk" or the nurturance of the "simple faith" which is "Christ Crucified", and yet according to Paul, there are deeper revelations which "the One teacher" only can give and which does not come from man, but through the Anointing, or Christ in you. My problem with orthodoxy is that it does not allow for a deepening revelation of Christ, as it claims that only what is found in orthodoxy is necessary for salvation, and therefore, "hold the keys to the Kingdom, do not enter themselves and prevent others from entering". ...just some thoughts, lily

yes. all methods which are condemned by orthodoxy as leading to heresy, UNLESS, they happen to concur with orthodoxy, which essentially means that "intuition, reason, revelation etc." is either unnecessary or heretical. Orthodoxy claims that nothing outside orthodoxy is necessary for salvation, and anything outside orthodoxy is condemned as heresy, so "intuition, reason, revelation, etc" is not useful for orthodox Christians. So....those of us who actually believe that we are led by the Holy Spirit through "intuition, reason, revelation, etc" are essentially heretics to the orthodox. That's how that works. lily

I hope that this is not too over the top...but are any of you familiar with the prophecies of Edgar Cayce? According to these prophecies there will be a Pope for short duration after Pope John Paul and then ONLY one more. I heard this on another site and did a brief search on it and it does appear to be true information. Are any of you familiar with this? "St. Malachy, (d. 1148) Irish Bishop and Seer, produced an accurate list of future popes which began with Pope Celestine II in the year 1143. His list consists of a single line which gives a clue to the characteristics of each pope. From this list of 112 popes there are to be just 2 more after Pope John Paul II who passed away on 2 April 2005. His predictions regarding the popes have been for the most part pretty accurate regarding the identifying characteristics that each line reveals. St. Malachy doesn't give any predictions or information about what happens after the last pope. According to some other seers, we will have arrived at the end times." Okay, this is what I found and it doesn't seem to be a Cayce prophecy but a prophecy of St. Malachy (whoever that is ) ...something to make you go "hmmm" lily

See, this is why I started this thread! I've never seen this movie and now, with two recommends, am going to rectify that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Make that three recommends. Beautiful movie! I'm a big fan of Robert Duval and so three of his movies would feature on my favorites list: "The Apostle" "The Stars Fell on Henrietta" "Tender Mercies" I love the lastest "King Arthur" movie (I'm a big fan of the music of Hans Zimmer who did this soundtrack and the soundtrack for Gladiator) "Legends" w/ Tom Cruise and Mia Sara "Sophies Choice" "Dangerous Liasons" "Dangerous Beauty" "The Muppet Movie" "The Cisco Kid" "Blazing Saddles" "Edward Scissorshands" ...just some lily

This is exactly what my partner said yesterday. Looking around on the net...it appears that many feel gloomy. Some of the people on the Pagan sites I frequent consider this disastrous, of course...though the hyperbole surrounding his "nazi youth" on these sights, and even panic that all Pagans may need to keep "low profiles" now is unfortunate. We DO seem surrounded on all sides by a staunch conservatism now though, don't we? But if seen as a reaction against the rising tide of liberalism, its not at all surprising, and may even augur times of great change ahead. After all, one can only go so far to one side without ushering in the advent of the "other" side. It would seem to me that the Church of Rome would realize that their position would remain much more tenable in the long run if it was more moderate. ...anyway...I'm no expert on the papacy or politics...but these are my thoughts. lily

Well...I think in a way that's her point. Why did the Gospel of John "get in" and the Gospel of Thomas get left out? But I haven't read the book yet obviously...so, I'm only going by her statements pertaining to this in "The Gnostic Gospels". Yeah, it did seem a short book and my book budget is so low and there is SO much to read that I think I'll take your lead and check it out at the library. lily

These are good quotations Earl. Thanks. I took a moment to copy them down in my notebook and googled Armstrong and read a few interviews with her. I've been familiar with her for some time, but I have yet to get through one of her books. I started her, "A History of God" some time back and got distracted by other things and never finished it. Some times the sheer amount of reading material available is overwhelming. Yesterday I went to Barnes & Nobles with the intent to buy Elaine Pagels "Beyond Belief" and instead stood in front of the bookshelves in the Christianity/Religion department of the store with my mouth open. I ended up walking out without buying a single book. I can relate to Armstrongs period of "disgust with religion" and go through that rather regularly myself. There are days when I feel an actual physical aversion to religious talk and study and wonder if the advice the poet Rilke gave to "the young poet" he corresponded with does not apply to those with religious passions as well. He said, "to feel that one could live without writing is enough indication that, in fact, one should." lily

Why do you say this? I stand by what I wrote here. The only thing that I will concede is that its not my place to speak for all Christians. Some may find this a perfectly acceptable and inspiring message, Christian or not. To me it sounds like something on a high school gym bulletin board, and it does not inspire me, nor do I suspect that it has much power to inspire very many. Why? Because most people DO try to be the best they can be already, or haven't you noticed? Just honestly Jen? If I went to a church and this is the best the preacher could do? I'd still be looking for a church. I don't mean to insult you and I wouldn't be taking this tack at all if you were writing as Jen. But there is something in your tone, the troubling fact that you insist that you are "channeling" information and not speaking your own heart and mind, that makes dialog with you draining and more frustrating than anything else. I'm going to have to bow out. lily

Except Jen, you just DID "describe" God in the same breath that you stated you don't care how "we" describe God. You describe God as God the Mother and God the Father. This description seems to inform your "core beliefs", as it would necessarily, and IS strictly speaking, a philosophical position. You know? How can one argue with that? I'll tell ya how. It's not a core Christian message. Any secular humanist can "try as hard as he/she can to be the best person "they" can be". And I support this. I have no argument with that at all. But I don't believe that it's what Christians are called to. I don't recall that Jesus was ever reported as saying, ever, anywhere, that all that is required is that "we be the best person we can be". In fact, I seem to remember that he objected when someone called him "Good Master", by stating that there is "none good but God". "Being the best person you can be" is an exercise of the ego, the very "thing" we are called as Christians to "die to". "Trying to be the best person you can be" is a work of the flesh, to use old Christian language, and this effort will accomplish only one thing, which is to wear you out, up one day and down the next. Christians are called to something much greater, much more difficult and yet more simple than this. We are called to be the sons of God; transparent vessels who mediate the Will of God to the whole of creation, and we accomplish this, at least in part, through the Awareness of who and what we are in God. This may or may not make you a "better person" in the eyes of the world; it depends on the point of view of the person looking. And who, pray tell, is the "God Team"? God is as much in the rules as in the trying. Both are *designed* to bring you to the end of yourself and into a state of Grace. lily