What is the ' spiritual attainment ' you mean, Pat ? And, Godhood ? " None of us can be all that exists, as the rest of the universe would disappear if all the universe was contained in a particular human."
Can you discover all the assumptions you are making in stating your above view ? In fact, what is ( the limit to ) being ' human ' ? Tongue in cheek apart. On Jun 10, 4:24 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4 June, 18:20, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > "and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." - is how we attain > > that level, through our own Christing. > > > Perhaps it comes down to believing, as the mystics do, that attaining > > the spiritual level of Christ is possible for man, and that was > > exactly the message he intended to deliver. Whether we assign the > > term "Christ", or buddha or Bodhisattva, or Son of God, the esstential > > idea is the same, as I see it. What we do ourselves, we do for > > everyone because through the eyes of God, we are everyone. > > I do agree, but with the fact that 'spiritual attainment' is possible > for us all, not 'Godhood'. None of us can be all that exists, as the > rest of the universe would disappear if all the universe was contained > in a particular human. I.e., that human, if they existed, would be > surrounded by vacuum and explode. Thus, there's little point to 'God > incarnate' unless that is, exactly, the process behind the Big Bang. > And, yes, I DO say that with tongue in cheek. > > > > > You don't have to agree. This is my humble view. > > > On Jun 4, 11:22 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 4 June, 15:28, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > "I cannot be you. Nor can I be > > > > anyone other than myself. These are not possible." > > > > > this is where we part ways, my friend. I contend that we ARE all > > > > others, and ourselves, the One and the Many. Within us, we are the > > > > Father, Son and Holy Ghost as realized in the moment through > > > > awareness. "All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man > > > > knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, > > > > save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Come unto > > > > me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you > > > > rest." (Matthew 11:27 - 28) Someone who has realized themselves as > > > > individuals, and all others, "knoweth the son." The son ascended to > > > > the father in us allows heaven on earth. There you have the heart of > > > > the Christian mystic teaching. > > > > Yes, but if 'No man knoweth the Son, but the Father', that is, > > > paraphrased for a modern reader: no man knows the Son, rather, only > > > the Father (knows the Son). Then no man can attain that level. The > > > next phrase explains the get-out clause, i.e., "save the Son, and he > > > to whomsoever the Son will reveal him". I'm hoping that you misspelt > > > that last word and that it should have been capitalised, i.e., "and he > > > to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him", so that "Him" actually relates > > > to God rather than anything/anyone else. The key point of this is > > > that Christ himself must intervene and ALLOW the revelation. It isn't > > > a self-realisation according to that quote, rather, it is a mediated > > > event mediated by Jesus. And I'm not too sure that this quote can be > > > relied upon, as it smacks a bit of Pauline theology more that actual > > > Christian teaching (by 'Christian teaching' I mean teachings actually > > > taught by Jesus rather than words put into his mouth at a later date > > > by those with an agenda to make his words more Pauline). Could you do > > > a bit of research for me, please? Is there an equivalent statement in > > > Mark? Mark was the earliest Gospel and the one that has had the least > > > amount of tampering done to it. If there is no equivalent quote or if > > > the quote is slightly different, I would lean towards the version in > > > Mark as being closer to the Christian teaching. > > > > I can agree completely that we are all linked to one another, but only > > > God can truly state that he is ALL of us. We DO, without doubt, > > > reflect one another, and that can make it seem like we are, in fact, > > > others, but it is no more than mistaking the reflection in the mirror > > > for your actual self, which I don't think you would do given a > > > mirror. Just as there are optical illusions, there are spiritual > > > illusions and, in a holographic universe, both of these can be > > > pitfalls for the seer (pun intended). > > > > Still, no worries about disagreeing. I've never yet met another > > > individual with whom I agreed regarding everything. These differences > > > are the whole reasons for our individuality and define our purpose for > > > existence as they PROVE the fact that differences can be had/made. If > > > we all thought the same, there's be little purpose in having so many > > > people. Our differences are our strengths. ;-) > > > > > Can we live in all time consciousness and linear consciousness > > > > simultaneously? I believe so. You may not. It's OK. I respect you > > > > completely. > > > > I believe we can, but not whilst incarnate. Once we have 'shuffled > > > off this mortal coil', then we can have access to the "all-time > > > consciousness" and that may well be one of the boons to heaven. > > > Having that possibility taken away from one may well be one of the > > > punishments of hell. > > > > > "We do, though, have a > > > > certain amount of time to think about how we react TO those > > > > realisations and/or feelings and it is our duty to one another to > > > > take > > > > that time and do just that." > > > > > Interesting, and what some, I suppose would feel to be choice. "Come > > > > onto me" would be the first step. > > > > Well, yes. Jesus' philosophy was, if taken and lived by, a way of > > > becoming at peace with the world and accepting one's role in it. To > > > "Come unto me" would be the first step for a Christian. It may take > > > other forms for those of other faiths. For Jews, it would be "To love > > > God with all thy heart, with all thy soul and with all thy might" and > > > for Muslims it is to understand without doubt, that "there is no God > > > worthy of worship but God/Allah". Note that both the other Abrahamic > > > faiths require no mediator/intercessor as is implied in the quote you > > > quoted. However, In the Lord's Prayer, Jesus implores everyone to > > > state "Thy will be done". Note how this does not allow for free will > > > or any will other than that of God. and that everyone addresses God, > > > through that prayer, as "Our Father, which art in heaven...". There > > > is no intercessor implied in the Lord's Prayer and I believe that this > > > role of intercessor is another Pauline doctrine that was not a valid > > > Christian teaching. We all have a one-to-One relationship with God > > > and the Lord's Prayer is a testament to that in amongst many quotes > > > that lead us to believe otherwise. > > > > But, please, do me that favour and see if there is a similar quote in > > > Mark, as I strongly suspect there isn't (and I don't have time to > > > look, myself, at the moment but I WILL look as soon as I get home). > > > And, please note that it takes a lot of work to separate Jesus' real > > > quotes from those that were added later. The main thing to look for > > > is whether or not they line up with Pauline doctrine or not. If they > > > DO, then they are suspect. Jesus was a Jew and would have, therefore, > > > believed that each of us has a one-to-One relationship with God, as > > > that is a basic tenet of Judaism. Anything that makes Jesus 'special' > > > and, in some way, God-like, is probably incorrect. Remember Jesus' > > > words in Gethsemene: Not my will but Thine be done. It was his > > > resoluteness in this belief that it was 'The will of God' that is/was > > > enacted and the one-to-One relationship that marks his mission not any > > > 'special relationship' that he held. THAT is Pauline doctrine. > > > > > On Jun 4, 7:39 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 4 June, 09:21, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > your sneer is showing. I will leave what Pat knows and doesn't up > > > > > > to > > > > > > Pat. But will say, like relative and absolute, One and Many, choice > > > > > > is a matter of state and stage of being. Ultimately, as we have > > > > > > realized the One within our individuality, our choices are the > > > > > > choices > > > > > > of the One, our self will becomes Divine Will. Yet, the choice to > > > > > > realize the One, to move toward, with or against others, to use > > > > > > hateful words or compassionate words, to make the move to understand > > > > > > or not, are all the relative choices that allow us to realize > > > > > > ourselves as One in Many. The paradox of it, is that we have choice > > > > > > and non choice and ultimately, they are the same because when we > > > > > > have > > > > > > realized infinite possibility, we have made all choices and so no > > > > > > choices. How many people do you know that have realized infinite > > > > > > possibility (Christ consciousness)? Anyone capable of moving > > > > > > against > > > > > > another person, has not. This realization, like all others, > > > > > > requires > > > > > > a change in viewpoint (that is a choice) that precludes such action. > > > > > > Those 'choices' are illusory and depend on our inability to know the > > > > > future like we do the past. We have access to the past through memory > > > > > but have no such facility with respect to the future. Einstein put it > > > > > best when he said that 'Free will is not compatible with space-time' > > > > > and it's really as simple as that. The space-time continuum holds ALL > > > > > events: those of our past, any present and all of the future. The > > > > > appearance of free will comes about because we have no access to the > > > > > future but DO, in the present, have the ability to perceive possible > > > > > 'next moves'; however, we can only ever perform one of those > > > > > possibilities and it is the one act we perform that is the act that > > > > > was, forever, contained in the continuum. > > > > > > Put mathematically: There is an event, X, that is a possible future > > > > > event and there is an > > ... > > read more »
