Liberal Christianity

[nestingwave]

Here's everything I have learned in a nutshell:

?

The above is not a Cobra ready to strike. And, it is not a "demon" as my dear Sunday School teacher told us. Nor is it the gateway to eternal agony screaming in the fires of hell. It is what makes a seeker----and when you seek with your entire being, you will find. Will it be empirically accurate? Not necessary... but so what? Peace is the result. And death no longer contains the slightest doubt or fear.

namaste

[Pete]

Here's everything I have learned in a nutshell:

?

The above is not a Cobra ready to strike. And, it is not a "demon" as my dear Sunday School teacher told us. Nor is it the gateway to eternal agony screaming in the fires of hell. It is what makes a seeker----and when you seek with your entire being, you will find. Will it be empirically accurate? Not necessary... but so what? Peace is the result. And death no longer contains the slightest doubt or fear.

namaste

Beautifully put (IMO).

Edited January 13, 2010 by Pete

[nestingwave]

According to your model of things, but we do not all work from your model of things Dan.

If I want to pick up a book and quote it, then that is up to me. I do not need anyone's permission or any religions permission. I have made plain what I feel about some of the writings and therefore I do not feel that hypocrisy comes into it.

Nestingwave. Your post makes a lot of sense to me. The Romans wanted a religion to rule people with. Constantine was no Christian by any standard, I know. He was a murderer and a tyrant who only got baptised on his death bed. He was more interested in the luck the symbol of the cross would bring him in battle and how to unify the empire and yet, it was him who made the basis of the religion we have today. Inerrrant, I am sure but only because a person would not live long if they challenged his wishes openly.

I liked your post Nestingwave and like you, I was right up with them until I started to read more widely, question things and come to some of my own conclusions. Something that some fear to do and only dare look at what they are told they can (IMO).

As for me I do not call that hypocrisy, I call that honesty.

[Coolhand]

Much like the liberal view that the Constitution is a "living document" to mean whatever they want it to mean, the bible says what it says and if folks are not going to follow what it says, maintain some sort of standard, then it really calls into question the veracity of the document and the belief in the first place. Generally speaking, this liberal view is just too conveniently self-serving and avoids the hard choices and sacrafices required to maintain standards, definitions and commonality.

Having said that, I think I agree with the majority here that if a certain faith makes a person a better person then the particulars ought not matter. But while spirituality is a personal thing, religion is an institution.....if a member of that institution is not going to ascribe to the tennants of that institution, then it's kinda like a diehard Yankee's fan buying season tickets at Dodger Stadium, that is to say, merely faithless convenience and opportunity.

and ,

The Agnostic

Absolutlety! Right on brother!

[Pete]

Absolutlety! Right on brother!

You say that and I thought you said you "Absolutely" recognised my faith. That seems shallow to me brother!

I may not have a like mind to yours but I still recognise yours.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Pete

[Dan56]

According to your model of things, but we do not all work from your model of things Dan.

If I want to pick up a book and quote it, then that is up to me. I do not need anyone's permission or any religions permission. I have made plain what I feel about some of the writings and therefore I do not feel that hypocrisy comes into it.

I have no problem with anyone quoting the bible, in fact I'm happy they do. My model of things is the bible. I'm not calling anyone a hypocrite, I just don't understand why a person who does not believe that Christ was Emmanuel (God with us), or who does not believe that we are redeemed through His sacrifice, would refer to themselves as Christian? Its like saying I'm a Democrat, but I always vote straight Republican? I just assume that agreeing with some of the things that you believe Jesus may have said, is what constitutes a liberal Christian. This is fine with me, but I just personally think that belief in Christ ought to include accepting him as my personal savior, otherwise it seems I would just be partially agreeing with a philosophy. But that's me, I'm not the type to dabble in belief, I'm either in on all four, or I'm not in at all. The bible is either false or true, and I've chose the latter. I guess that's the difference between the Liberal and Fundamental perspectives.

[nestingwave]

That seems great to me but what about those who quote 2 Timothy 3:16. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness".

Actually, in my opinion, if one takes this scripture while understanding what "God-breathed" and "useful for..." means, I fully agree with 2 Timothy 3:16.

It is not "Holy Sanctification" that insists any Book is "inerrant." Nope. Now, we well know, or should know, the manipulations of the original Aramaic document by a certain group of religionists with a political agenda. Was that manipulation "God-breathed?" They thought so because they viewed THEMSELVES as the CARETAKERS of all Almighty God's breathing---as absurd as that sounds. They actually believed that whatever they came up with had to be "God-breathed" because they were deluded into thinking THEY THEMSELVES WERE INERRANT simply because they were some self-styled "spiritual successors" to the Apostles---who were long dead by that time.

"God-breathed" is exactly that and God's breathing never ceases not is it any respector of persons. One either synchronizes themselves with it, or not. Our choice. But who allows God to unobstructedly breathe through in order get it down on paper? Is that persons' interpretation of what God is breathing through them accurate? Or could there possibly be a HUGE SELF-EGO involved? So, even though "all scripture is God-breathed" through human outlets, the human outlets are often a MIXTURE. An outlet that is more (or less) unobstructed by mental analysis, imagination, supposition, prejudice, self- image, politics, desires, lusts, cultural beliefs, opinions and social consensus realities, etc.

However in the case of the Bible as it exists today, there was conscious purposeful manipulation of the "God-breathed" scriptures they were busy altering in order to conform with the man-made religion they were manufacturing. Is that "God-breathed?" Hardly. That's human intervention---not "Divine" by any means..

So, was the original good-newsl "God-Breathed?" To the best ability of the human outlets it was. However, it had to be interpreted into human thought, language and form to get it down onto a page----so, it all depends upon the purity of the "channel" through which it came. That's why they practiced veganism and celibacy---to align themselves with their inner Source and become a healer. That's why they fasted and prayed and meditated and were given to much contemplation

They willingly gave up themselves for the highest possible good of all.

They PUT ASIDE their ego-self to become the clearest, purist and most focused "outlet" of the Speaking within that they could----knowing full well they still had limitations. Not only did they do that but they acquired clear cognitive minds to mentally understand the parables spoken by the son-of-man with enlightened understanding up to the edge of their well self- recognized LIMITATIONS.

Unlike the Holy Roman Fathers, they were humble rather than arrogant.

So, this was no "hobby" but a full-time endeavor with them and WITH NO SALARY as in the case of the Roman Holy Fathers who were financially supported by the Roman Empire and thus had a State Sponsor with certain.... uh.... requirements? (hmmmm..... sounds liike the politicians of today fully owned by a hidden agenda---or at least an agenda they would rather keep hidden lest they be invited to a necktie party.)

You simply "cannot serve God and Mammon." The two simply do not mix. The exposure of the manipulated Bible of today is proof of that.

Now, does that mean the original was totally inerrant? No no no. It only means there was geniune seeking going on instead of puffed-up egos with their own militaristic politics.

"Judge the tree by the fruit it bears."

Today, this is still a good measure to get down to the truth. Just take a look at the "fruit" of the institutionalized error of the "ianity" that started back then. Division upon division. Just look at it. That tells you clearly the quality of the tree it came from in the first place---the vile immorality of Priestcraft.

Now look, I am being rather harsh so far without mentioning the fact that through all that vile corruption there were always popping up some enlightened individuals who, although they may have wanted to preserve their lives by staying "low profile," saw through the fraudulent hoax.

St. John of the Cross was one of those.

He wrote a great work entitled, "Ascending Mt. Carmel." A very esoteric work that requires some deep sea diving to find the jewel. St Theresa of Avila was his good friend. And, there have been many like them throughout history, but they were always overshadowed by the popular institutionalized error foisted originally upon the masses. <==no pun intended.

Heretics were strongly invited to their own barbeque. And "heretic" meant ANYONE who dared to have a different thought and make it known. If you do not believe that is true, read the well-known indisputable history of it. So, that's why the "esoteric" became.... "secret" and obscured by layers of mental conundrums and vails---life insurance.

Occult means "hidden." But actually "hidden for a good reason."

However, nothing is "hidden" from enlightened eyes interfacing with their Prime Source.

Yeshua even used this technique by speaking in parables which only his inner circle of disciples could readily discern. "And without a parable spoke he not." However, those highly layered parables were given to all openly. Those who were able put aside their ego-selves could indeed understand them, not just his inner circle of disciples. However the Roman secret "intelligence agents" in the crowd didn't have a clue.

They finally had to get him by accusing him of making himself "equal with God." hahahaha. Even though he only pointed to our All-Parent continually.

Such was the politics of ancient Palestine. Nothing has changed much since then, it seems... but.... it is about to not only "change" but face rather harsh Divine Judgement (which is just the rebounding effect they themselves created unknowingly, not understanding the Law of Cause and Effect), as every "secret" is shouted from the roof tops and the Control Paradigm over the bodies, minds and souls of men.... ends forever.

And.... its really going to piss some folks off. But, once they work through their anguished tantrums of furious anger for having been so easily duped, indluding the controllers themselves, they will know it was all for the best, even if their highly entrenched and petrified belief systems are the loosers.

Without a good strong prison chrysalis, there can be no butterfly. Everything you need to know can be seen in Mother Nature.

So, thank you Control Paradigm... and goodbye forever.

"You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." <== the motto of the American CIA. heheheh.

"By deception we wage war." <== the motto of the Israeli Mossad.

"Nothing has changed its still the same" <== The Beatles

But.... give it a few more years----there is a rumbling of many feet headed for a Great Gathering and it becomes louder daily... as it reaches critical mass.

namaste

[Brother Michael Sky]

Just as individuals have Karma, so do groups, institutions, and countries..... We are of the generation when Karma comes home to roost with the Catholic Church.....

[nestingwave]

I have no problem with anyone quoting the bible, in fact I'm happy they do. My model of things is the bible. I'm not calling anyone a hypocrite, I just don't understand why a person who does not believe that Christ was Emmanuel (God with us), or who does not believe that we are redeemed through His sacrifice, would refer to themselves as Christian? Its like saying I'm a Democrat, but I always vote straight Republican? I just assume that agreeing with some of the things that you believe Jesus may have said, is what constitutes a liberal Christian. This is fine with me, but I just personally think that belief in Christ ought to include accepting him as my personal savior, otherwise it seems I would just be partially agreeing with a philosophy. But that's me, I'm not the type to dabble in belief, I'm either in on all four, or I'm not in at all. The bible is either false or true, and I've chose the latter. I guess that's the difference between the Liberal and Fundamental perspectives.

Perhaps you assume "Christian" and "Christ-ianity" are one and the same? They are not. Just as "spirituality" and "religion" are not one and the same. "Christian" means to follow Christ--the annointing of Almighty God. "Christ-ianity" means to follow Roman indoctrination in the name of Jesus.

This is the definition of it I understand and makes sense to me. Not the usual definition, granted which sees no distinction between the "ianity" of Rome and the Love of Jesus.

There have been many followers of Christ over the centuries who were un-involved in Christ-ianity and all its divisions, false doctrines and dogmas sold as inerrant absolute Truth.

Of course, I understand the argument that "God is perfectly able to protect his Word." Yes... and indeed God has protected his word.... but not in Christ-ianity but in the followers of the genuine Christ throughout the ages. In my view, the Word of God is far more than anything written down on a page. It is a heart matter not a Scholarly one nor a divisive one nor an inerrant one for the reasons I outlined in my post above.

I refused to call myself a Christian for many years simply because I will have nothing whatsoever to do with the "ianity." The "Church" are the ones who are "called out" and the "ianity" is a large part of what the believers in Christ are called out from, since it in no way represents the genuine son-of-man. Neither does politics. Neither does the world system of error. Neither does militarism. Neither does blood sacrifice. Neither does any hierarchy of so-called 'religious" control.

That's just my strong opinion Dan, of course. And I find that many others whom I greatly respect and admire have discovered the same thing. But, since the programming of the "ianity" is so powerfully strong, few are able to be set free from it. And yes, just like the world system of error, it becomes another bondage. However, there is always hope. All a person has to do is finally trace back where their belief system originated and WHO gave it to them.

Any religion based upon arrogance and threats and twisted doctrines is a bye bye for me. And I have spent many many years digging and seeking. Is it all accurate? Probably not. However, I have/am giving it my very best and am totally willing to share with anyone what little I have learned. IF and only IF they care to hear. The pushiness of so-called "evangelical" Christ-ianity that constantly uses the same old Roman techniques of threats, pious absolutisms and obedience to man-made hierarchy, is a huge red-flag for a person such as myself that knows beyond a doubt that it is the "Truth" that sets me free, not threats and pious platitudes nor control and over the minds and souls of men. Such "control" is just the opposite of the freedom Christ brings.

Ask yourself this. If the Roman doctrines and dogmas that make up your Bible of today were true.... why did they need to stamp out all other ideas by murdering people? Does that serve the Truth in anyway whatsoever? NO. But is does serve a political agenda of control. That should tell you something right there.

And, if you doubt that was the case, you'd better find out more about it because just as the earth is not flat but a globe, there is much cooberating evidence. The Truth needs no military enforcement and in fact if military enforcement is there... the Truth is not there. It should be obvious if you know the gentle Jesus and his teaching and even more obvious if you know and listen to Almighty God speaking deep within the core of your heart of hearts. Of course the teaching you know is what Rome gave you---the "ianity." For many years that is the only teaching I had also.

Well, that is not the whole story. Rome did not become Christ-ianity until centuries after the advent and their agendas are very well documented. I can say that because I myself was once a member of the Roman Catholic Church and also the Protestant Church before that-----which has the same original error of the "ianity." Just compare a King James Bible somtime with a Douey Reams Bible. THEY ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL except for the extra book in the Douey Reams. That is because both came from the same source---the Greek scriptures manipulated by the Holy Roman Fathers. The original Aramaic gospel (written in Yeshua's own tongue) predated those and was indeed the very archetype that those Holy Roman Fathers used as a basis for their new Romanized State Religion which was didacted and highly edited by hired "correctors." The "correctors" were commissioned to make it "fit" with the Roman agenda to which the Holy Roman Fathers were obligated. Then they set out to destroy all the evidence that said otherwise. And they almost, but not quite, succeeded. And so, today you have Christ-ianity. Little of Christ and much ianity. That's exactly why today's Christians are so divided up into sects, denominations and cults, all insisting they are "right" and the others are either "wrong" or fall short of their particular sectarian revelation of whichever flavor it may be.

Read John 17. And I suggest you spend some time contemplating it with new ears. This sectarianism is directly the opposite of Jesus' prayer to the Father. "Judge the tree by the fruit it bears." Now.... don't you believe that Almighty God answers Jesus' prayer? Oh yes he does. And it is not in any divisive "ianity."

So now, many of the divisions have realize that and try to become ONE through Ecumenicalism. Yet they retain the very thing that divided them up in the first place, the Roman doctrines and dogmas and human absolutisms---- so all Ecumenicalism is totally in vain. It is like trying to put a band-aide on a sucking chest wound. The patient still dies.

Swimming against a strong rip-tide is exhausting and frustrating but when you see that the fruit of the popular rip-tide not only violates your inner spiritual connection but eventually enslaves and murders you, one gets very determined to swim harder with the Spirit's full support.

I appreciate your belief system and understand it because I have been there myself. So, if you want to, just label me a "heretic" back-slider. That's okay. Many in the "iantiy" have already. I will be in very good company indeed.

And actually, Dan, Immanuel does not mean "God with us." It means "God WITHIN us." And there is NO blood sacrifice that will wash away your sins, neither animal nor human nor Divine. Sin is only overcome with repentance and a new direction. Otherwise you learn nothing. And that is the original teaching of the son-of-man. This is my belief system and is not based upon speculation nor my own opinions. Nor is it based upon any Spiritual Writing, although the original gospel----written down before the Holy Fathers enforced their doctrines and dogmas with the "ianity"---is very clear indeed about those points. However, I had already worked through many of those things before I ever found out that such an original gospel existed. Yes, God protects his Holy Word in spite of anything Rome could do with their many pogroms and bonfires while insulting the name of Jesus Christ.

So, it all depends upon how much you or I are willing to seek with ALL our heart, mind and soul and how much we wish to cling to what the Roman Holy Fathers foisted upon the world in their adversarial darkness.

As for me, I choose to follow Yeshua's original teaching which includes reincarnation, veganism, and NO blood sacrifice. He came to END all blood sacrifices but was twisted by a man-made agenda into a blood sacrifice by those who virulently oppose him for the sake of poisonous world consumption. What world? Our present dysfunctional system of error that is about to perish utterly by its own suicidal behavior.

However, the genuine Kingdom of Almighty God is about to be manifested right here ON THE EARTH, just as God said it would. Peace on earth and to all creatures will be----once the long time control paradigm is exposed for what it has been all along (for thousands of years.) It can only exist in darkness. Once the light of Revelation shines upon it, it is finished. But first, the seals of the blinders upon our own eyes must be removed. That "AHA!" is the Truth that sets men free, unless of course they choose to hang on to the familiar as it completely vaporizes. So be it. We are all destined to make a choice. I choose Christ over the Christ-ianity that insultingly goes by his Holy Name under the disguise of Spiritual Authority, inerrancy and blackmail.

Many may be upset because I am so outspoken but it certainly needs to be said---and Yeshua himself says it far better and with more conviction. And try as they might, His Word could not and cannot be destroyed because it is not only written on paper but upon our hearts.

namaste

[Dan56]

Perhaps you assume "Christian" and "Christ-ianity" are one and the same? They are not. Just as "spirituality" and "religion" are not one and the same. "Christian" means to follow Christ--the annointing of Almighty God. "Christ-ianity" means to follow Roman indoctrination in the name of Jesus.

A Christian is a person who believes in and follows Jesus Christ, Christianity is the state or fact of being a Christian, it doesn't necessarily equate to religiosity.

Ask yourself this. If the Roman doctrines and dogmas that make up your Bible of today were true.... why did they need to stamp out all other ideas by murdering people? Does that serve the Truth in anyway whatsoever? NO. But is does serve a political agenda of control. That should tell you something right there.

Your making an assumption that the bible was altered by Rome for the purpose of political influence and control, but there is no evidence that suggest this to be so. I believe the bible was accurately preserved and I fail to see an altercation within its pages that would benefit some Roman agenda? Stamping out all other ideas or fake Gnostic works was probably done to preserve the truly inspired writings, and to eliminate confusion over what was real from what was phony. The New Testament is confirmed by the Old Testament and vice versa, so any attempts to tamper with scripture would be obvious. Even your 'Gospel of Twelve' replicates much of what the bible says, some verses are word for word.

And actually, Dan, Immanuel does not mean "God with us." It means "God WITHIN us." And there is NO blood sacrifice that will wash away your sins, neither animal nor human nor Divine. Sin is only overcome with repentance and a new direction. Yes, God protects his Holy Word in spite of anything Rome could do with their many pogroms and bonfires while insulting the name of Jesus Christ.

The Strong's concordance defines Emmanuel as God with us. Doesn't your 'original' Gospel suggest a Divine blood sacrifice; "Lo, I have given my body and my blood to be offered on the Cross, for the redemption of the world from the sin against love, and from the bloody sacrifices and feasts of the past" (Lection 87;9). I agree that God protects his Holy Word in spite of anything Rome could do.

[nestingwave]

Dan,

That the Greek versions were distorted there is no doubt. The Roman Fathers themselves admitted it in their own writings and the comparison with the earliest Aramaic text, which preceded the Greek texts by a few hundred years, proves it.

And, yes, anything under the auspice of Roman Empire was a political agenda including the State Religion which became Christ-ianity under Constantine.

OK Dan, reconcile this with the other Lection:

Lection 33

By The Shedding Of Blood Of Others Is No Remission Of Sins.

my note: [There is no scapegoat removal of my individual sins,

I have to repent and prove it by amendment]

1. IESUS was teaching his disciples in the outer court of the Temple and one of them said unto him: Master, it is said by the priests that without shedding of blood there is no remission. Can then the

blood offering of the law take away sin?

2. And Iesus answered: No blood offering, of beast or bird, or man, can take away sin, for how can the conscience be purged from sin by the shedding of innocent blood? Nay, it will increase the condemnation.

3. The priests indeed receive such offering as a reconciliation of the worshippers for the trespasses against the law of Moses, but for sins against the Law of God there can be no remission, save by repentance and amendment.

Now, reconcile this with the other scripture from later on in the same Aramaic work which is the prototype gospel. (The Gospel of the Holy Twelve)

Lo, I have given my body and my blood to be offered on the Cross, for the redemption of the world [Rainbow smiled] from the sin against love, and from the bloody sacrifices and feasts of the past" (Lection 87;9).

So, Christ's work on the cross was not for my individual sins but specifically for the redemption of the world from the "sin against love" with its dysfunctional past soaked in blood---a matter of transformation for the entire world from its present ignorant state of collective consciousness which is best summed up as the "sin against love."---a matter of the overall collectve consciousness. He speaks here of the coming Kingdom of God upon the earth---a transformed civilization recognizing the All-Parent our Source and thus the loving interconnectivity of all beings with open loving hearts and total respect for the entire web of life including all animals and Mother Nature. Not Divine Heavenly perfection yet, just sanity and the opportunity to grow instead of perish in total dysfunction---which is the present state of affairs.

My cousin is a Baptist Sunday School Teacher of many years. He once told me that all his sins past, present and future were already forgiven because of the blood of Jesus. That is, he no longer had to do anything because Jesus paid it all through his blood sacrifice. Jesus took all sins upon himself and evaporated them regardless of any action from him. He expected that he would sin in the future but it didn't matter because he was already forgiven forever through Jesus' work on the cross. Nope. This, in my view, is one of the misconceptions furthered by the many distortions in our present Bible, although I still have no idea how my dear cousin arrived at that absurd supposition.

It only goes to show that people tend to follow any idea that keeps them from assuming personal responsibility for their own actions. Of course one of the biggest division in Christ-ianity is the squabble between those who say they are "saved" forever once and for all (Baptists) and those who are "saved" today and "lost" tomorrow (Pentecostals, Catholics and Methodists)

Also, if we do not self-correct our own behavior thinking that some "savior" did that for us, we never learn responsibility for our own creations. We are creative beings made in the image and likeness of Almighty God our Creator. We can be co-creators with our All-Parent or we can create a living hell for ourselves. Our choice. Jesis in no way "saves" us from the necessity of taking personal responsibility for our own actions. He didn't eliminate our need for ammendment by becoming some kind of a "scape-goat." And that's why the original gospel made this distinction and why it was later taken out to further the Roman Control Paradigm over the bodies, minds and souls of men---a system of error whose fruit is now fully visible to all--or should be, if anyone is paying attention.

The Romans wanted an obedient herd completely subservient to them at all times--- and that's why the many didactions of inconvienient scripture for their personal Roman agenda and hierarchy of clergy-laity. And this situation set the tone for the Roman religion of Christ-ianity which persists to this day among both Catholics and Protestants.

Lection 33 and Lection 87 are not contradictory. Just contemplate on both of these a bit and you will understand this in a way that todays "ianity" is unable to because of the complete elimination of Lection 33 in the Greek versions by the doctrinal "adjustments" and the original wording in Lection 87 which is also distorted in the Greek version by the hired "correctors." leaving out "the sin against love" altogether and simply saying "sins."

"The sin against love" is what our present dysfunctional earth civilization is all about. And, each and every one of us contribute to it by participating daily. We support it every time we pay our taxes or pick up our pay check. Presently, our world is a prison planet and we are immersed in the Mammon (money) of unrighteousness. But "you shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free." That Truth has been greatly obfuscated and hidden and the religious control paradigm in league with politics is greatly responsible for that. Today, the Roman Empire is still very much alive and in control. Only the names have been changed to deceive the innocent.

Revelation is just the scales falling off our eyes and it is already occurring world-wide. It will take a huge change in our planetary consciousness to love instead of fear. And that is exactly what Yeshua spiritually did for us on the cross---and no one can understand the "how" except that it is not because he became a bleeding scapegoat for our individual sins---we are responsible to properly deal with our own mistakes---otherwise we learn nothing and make no upward progress. But in some mysterious way, he made such a transformation possible for the whole world by opening the multidimensional portal of unconditional love.

So, what did Yeshua say on the cross regarding those who crucified him and mocked him?

He did not say, "Father forgive them for their sins." No, he did not. He said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." Our big problem is not our "sins" (GK=hamartia=missing the mark=mistakes) ---we must repent and make ammendment for those in order to not have an adverse relationship with God's Law of Cause and Effect--- but our main problem is our ignorance of who and what we are and lack of awareness of the interconnectivity of all life in the All-Parent---the One Source of All-That-is-- was-- or ever shall be.

This is the message of the original gospel of Yeshua the Christ. And lack of that message in today's "ianity" is why the devisive squabbling over jots and tittles and "lost/saved" continues unabated----a huge man-manufactured distraction that ignores Yeshua's Divine teaching about his work, reincarnation, respect for the entire web of life and our innate ONENESS in our All-Parent---which we know very little about thanks to centuries of Roman "ianity."

But, even though so much of this religiousity was done with evil intentions, in the long run it only served to make us more appreciate the reality when it finally dawns upon our blind eyes and we learn to love others unconditionally even as we are loved by Almighty God.

namaste

[Pete]

I have no problem with anyone quoting the bible, in fact I'm happy they do. My model of things is the bible. I'm not calling anyone a hypocrite, I just don't understand why a person who does not believe that Christ was Emmanuel (God with us), or who does not believe that we are redeemed through His sacrifice, would refer to themselves as Christian? Its like saying I'm a Democrat, but I always vote straight Republican? I just assume that agreeing with some of the things that you believe Jesus may have said, is what constitutes a liberal Christian. This is fine with me, but I just personally think that belief in Christ ought to include accepting him as my personal savior, otherwise it seems I would just be partially agreeing with a philosophy. But that's me, I'm not the type to dabble in belief, I'm either in on all four, or I'm not in at all. The bible is either false or true, and I've chose the latter. I guess that's the difference between the Liberal and Fundamental perspectives.

I guess I see it different to Nestingwave because I have not done the same area of study that he appears to have done. I call myself a Christian because I believe God resided within Jesus and spoke through him. I believe Jesus preached that God can reside within, hence, the meaning of the kingdom of heaven within and also in the future.

Jesus never said there would be this collection of books which they will call the bible (which means collection of books) and when it is written you should believe it as if it was spoken by God himself. Jesus is supposed to have said he would send the comforter to guide you and that is something entirely different (IMO).

I have struggled often with the name Christian, but not because I do not believe in Jesus, but because I believe the religion of Christianity has become an all controlling movement that prescribes what one shall or shall not believe. For me it it is a bit like (okay I am also a Trekki) the meeting of he Borg and their statement "individuality is meaningless and you will be assimilated" and "life as you know it has creased and you will be part of a collective consciousness".

I worry that any revelation that God gives to an individual today would be stifled and processed by the church till it would not exist anymore.

I am not saying we cannot learn from the bible but that does not make it the actual word of God. There are some wonderful things in it that I do believe are lessons from God but one should rely on the Spirit of God first. I give you an example:- did you know that the story of Jesus saving the women caught in adultery and saying those without sin cast the first stone was not actually in the earliest writings of John's Gospel. Yet, should they be deleted from the bible because we should be accurate to John's gospel. I would say no, because I believe it to be a wonderful example and lesson of God in action. However, It may or may not have happened. We really do not know.

The bible has been changed in differing areas but the question for me, is not whether it is 100% accurate but does it convey the message of the Spirit. I believe in places it does and in places it does not. I believe the Spirit in ones heart will inform a person, not whether a story or writing is accurate of not, but whether it is nourishing to your relationship with God and personal growth in the Spirit.

So, does this mean that I do not believe a person should say that they believe every word in the bible is God spoken and inerrant? I would say no, I do not believe that, but I do believe that they should not expect that I and everyone else should follow that or be said to be damned by God for not believing every word of a collection of books. I believe, I should be able to make up my own mind in whatever the Spirit of God leads me.

That is where I believe we mainly differ. I do not believe that the 5 fundamental truths (as quoted earlier) are actually fundamental to being a Christian, and I recognise that some do. What I do believe is fundamental is the power of the Spirit of God to work within a person and their personal relationship to God. Whether, another person sees me as a Christian or not a Christian because I do not follow everything prescribed by the religion, is for me a very secondary issue. I do not await their validation. That is between me and God.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Pete

[Brother Michael Sky]

The whole idea of whether to call myself a christian or not is rather clear to me. In my metaphysical view I don't call myself a christian because I believe Jesus walked the planet, and neither do I because of his teachings.... I do because Jesus was the one to bring this world the CHRIST spirit.... a dispensation of LOVE, a change from the old paradigm. I see, understand, and wholeheartedly wish to live in the true meaning of the CHRIST SPIRIT. I am not there yet, but as do the buddhist's - I PRACTICE my belief...

I do REALLY like that about Buddhists... they never claim they have been " saved " - they PRACTICE their beliefs all their life... wouldn't it be humorous to get to classical christian heaven and find the place filled with Buddhists..... ( now that's funny, I don't care who you are....) no halos just saffron robes everywhere..... whew, sometimes i amuse myself....

Edited January 14, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky

[Dan56]

So, Christ's work on the cross was not for my individual sins but specifically for the redemption of the world from the "sin against love" with its dysfunctional past soaked in blood---a matter of transformation for the entire world from its present ignorant state of collective consciousness which is best summed up as the "sin against love."---a matter of the overall collectve consciousness.

And that is exactly what Yeshua spiritually did for us on the cross---and no one can understand the "how" except that it is not because he became a bleeding scapegoat for our individual sins---we are responsible to properly deal with our own mistakes---

No doubt that Jesus offered himself for the world, but a world of individuals, who will be judged independently of one another. I agree that Jesus was not a scapegoat who provided a free pass to everyone, but he did say that 'Whosoever believes on Him and repents of their sins, will not perish'.

He did not say, "Father forgive them for their sins." No, he did not. He said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."

I believe the forgiveness was for their ignorance of what they were doing. Like innocent children who are incapable of understanding and haven't the knowledge to distinguish right from wrong. Since they sinned in ignorance of the truth, Jesus did not hold them accountable. If they had known better and willingly killed the Son of God, then I believe there would be consequences unless they repented

[RevRainbow]

I believe the forgiveness was for their ignorance of what they were doing. Like innocent children who are incapable of understanding and haven't the knowledge to distinguish right from wrong. Since they sinned in ignorance of the truth, Jesus did not hold them accountable. If they had known better and willingly killed the Son of God, then I believe there would be consequences unless they repented

Dan, do you think this would hold true for today, for those of other beliefs and/or religions who allegedly sin in ignorance?

[nestingwave]

I guess I see it different to Nestingwave .....

And, you see exactly why that is the case---and stated it quite well. Every human being on earth will have a different (greatly or slightly) POV than every other human being. That's because we all have our individual experiences. So the Oneness has nothing to do with our varying opinions that make up our individual belief systems. There are many factors that contribute to all those individual vantage points. Some of them are: culture, religion, education, field of study, trauma, social consensus reality, language, religious indictrination, spiritual experiences, etc. etc. etc.

That's why, in order to see our Oneness in the All-Parent we have to transcend all those items and experience Pure Being. Religion is often the biggest hinderance to that instead of a help because it keeps us focused into a linear conundrum trying to make sense out of all the pieces when we are only familiar with the few pieces we have personally experienced.

The way we process information is the same but the information coming into our biological senses from the surrounding intelligent energy field is not interpreted in the same way due to all those factors.

So, if we can dive deeper than all those items, we move toward our Source and, of course, that is what meditation is about. When we move in that direction, we discover that we are ONE and totally interconnected with All-That-Is and every life-form in the entire Universe.

This brings a heart of compassion. And, of course that's what the Compassionate Buddha and the Loving Christ is all about. Indeed, They and We are ONE as we are with every other being int he entire Creation which is only ONE THING.

That was a very good post Pete and shows real insight---IMHO, of course. heheheh.

namaste

The whole idea of whether to call myself a christian or not is rather clear to me. In my metaphysical view I don't call myself a christian because I believe Jesus walked the planet, and neither do I because of his teachings.... I do because Jesus was the one to bring this world the CHRIST spirit.... a dispensation of LOVE, a change from the old paradigm. I see, understand, and wholeheartedly wish to live in the true meaning of the CHRIST SPIRIT. I am not there yet, but as do the buddhist's - I PRACTICE my belief...

I do REALLY like that about Buddhists... they never claim they have been " saved " - they PRACTICE their beliefs all their life... wouldn't it be humorous to get to classical christian heaven and find the place filled with Buddhists..... ( now that's funny, I don't care who you are....) no halos just saffron robes everywhere..... whew, sometimes i amuse myself....

And of course.... OOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

namaste

Edited January 14, 2010 by nestingwave

[Brother Michael Sky]

I believe the forgiveness was for their ignorance of what they were doing. Like innocent children who are incapable of understanding and haven't the knowledge to distinguish right from wrong. Since they sinned in ignorance of the truth, Jesus did not hold them accountable. If they had known better and willingly killed the Son of God, then I believe there would be consequences unless they repented

beautiful explanation of the Law of Karma.... and for the efforts to bring us that Dispensation of Love - Thank You Jesus !

[Dan56]

I guess I see it different to Nestingwave because I have not done the same area of study that he appears to have done. I call myself a Christian because I believe God resided within Jesus and spoke through him. I believe Jesus preached that God can reside within, hence, the meaning of the kingdom of heaven within and also in the future.

Jesus never said there would be this collection of books which they will call the bible (which means collection of books) and when it is written you should believe it as if it was spoken by God himself. Jesus is supposed to have said he would send the comforter to guide you and that is something entirely different (IMO).

I have struggled often with the name Christian, but not because I do not believe in Jesus, but because I believe the religion of Christianity has become an all controlling movement that prescribes what one shall or shall not believe. For me it it is a bit like (okay I am also a Trekki) the meeting of he Borg and their statement "individuality is meaningless and you will be assimilated" and "life as you know it has creased and you will be part of a collective consciousness".

I worry that any revelation that God gives to an individual today would be stifled and processed by the church till it would not exist anymore.

I am not saying we cannot learn from the bible but that does not make it the actual word of God. There are some wonderful things in it that I do believe are lessons from God but one should rely on the Spirit of God first. I give you an example:- did you know that the story of Jesus saving the women caught in adultery and saying those without sin cast the first stone was not actually in the earliest writings of John's Gospel. Yet, should they be deleted from the bible because we should be accurate to John's gospel. I would say no, because I believe it to be a wonderful example and lesson of God in action. However, It may or may not have happened. We really do not know.

The bible has been changed in differing areas but the question for me, is not whether it is 100% accurate but does it convey the message of the Spirit. I believe in places it does and in places it does not. I believe the Spirit in ones heart will inform a person, not whether a story or writing is accurate of not, but whether it is nourishing to your relationship with God and personal growth in the Spirit.

So, does this mean that I do not believe a person should say that they believe every word in the bible is God spoken and inerrant? I would say no, I do not believe that, but I do believe that they should not expect that I and everyone else should follow that or be said to be damned by God for not believing every word of a collection of books. I believe, I should be able to make up my own mind in whatever the Spirit of God leads me.

That is where I believe we mainly differ. I do not believe that the 5 fundamental truths (as quoted earlier) are actually fundamental to being a Christian, and I recognise that some do. What I do believe is fundamental is the power of the Spirit of God to work within a person and their personal relationship to God. Whether, another person sees me as a Christian or not a Christian because I do not follow everything prescribed by the religion, is for me a very secondary issue. I do not await their validation. That is between me and God.

Jesus often referred to scripture, saying; 'Haven't you read?' So I think its imperative not to dismiss the collection of books which compose the old and new testaments. Just a thought; If the old testament was a collection of imaginary stories, then the prophesies of Christ wouldn't hold much weight.

I completely agree that religion has misconstrued much of the bible and have emphasize parts which suite themselves while dismissing parts they find inconvenient. Certain denominations undoubtedly add to the Word, or twist it towards their own purpose, its organized 'spin'. Remember that Christ only found 2 of the 7 churches in Revelation to be acceptable.

Most people have trouble believing everything in the bible, partly because they don't understand or because they don't like what it says. But that's where faith comes in, by believing and trusting what we can't always comprehend. The only difference between you and I Pete, is that I believe that Jesus was the living manifestation of God in the flesh and I interpret the bible as the inspired Word of God, while you have trouble swallowing what the bible says and prefer to try and spiritually discern the Truth.

[Fawzo]

I completely agree that religion has misconstrued much of the bible and have emphasize parts which suite themselves while dismissing parts they find inconvenient. Certain denominations undoubtedly add to the Word, or twist it towards their

The Bible is a mess Dan and here is a perfect example of two scriptures which totally contradict one another. In Acts you have the author telling us that people have worshipped pagans in ignorance and God merely winks at this ignorance. Then we have the scripture in Romans where the author tells us there is no excuse for any such ignorance as nature itself testifies of God.

You may ignore all the contradictions that have been presented to you, but they are there and many are irreconcilable. Is there any wonder the Bible breeds confusion on many fronts?

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. 23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. 24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. 30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. Acts 17:22-31 (KJV)

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse Romans 1:16-20 (KJV)

Edited January 14, 2010 by Fawzo

[Pete]

Jesus often referred to scripture, saying; 'Haven't you read?' So I think its imperative not to dismiss the collection of books which compose the old and new testaments. Just a thought; If the old testament was a collection of imaginary stories, then the prophesies of Christ wouldn't hold much weight.

They hold weight because they were in the experience and culture of the people Jesus was speaking too. Jesus only referred to the OT because NT did not exist during his time. The weight is in the meaning of what was is said in the bible and yet, it seems not everything quoted is actually thought to of been said by Jesus. Read:- http://en.wikipedia....i/Jesus_Seminar

I completely agree that religion has misconstrued much of the bible and have emphasize parts which suite themselves while dismissing parts they find inconvenient. Certain denominations undoubtedly add to the Word, or twist it towards their own purpose, its organized 'spin'. Remember that Christ only found 2 of the 7 churches in Revelation to be acceptable.

I would say every church puts their own spin on things. I would say that Jesus never found any church acceptable or not acceptable simply because these churches did not exist at the time of Jesus. Revelations was written later. See:- http://en.wikipedia....k_of_Revelation

Most people have trouble believing everything in the bible, partly because they don't understand or because they don't like what it says. But that's where faith comes in, by believing and trusting what we can't always comprehend. The only difference between you and I Pete, is that I believe that Jesus was the living manifestation of God in the flesh and I interpret the bible as the inspired Word of God, while you have trouble swallowing what the bible says and prefer to try and spiritually discern the Truth.

I have been where you are my friend and found with my studies that there were issues with the bible. Issues that I did not at first gladly accept but I could not and still cannot deny they are there. My journey has been the product of sometimes painful synthesis and I do not think I do not believe the bible because I do not understand or that I intend to write off all of its teachings, but that is not the same as continuing to support the bible as inerrant when that is something that I believe to be a lie.

You have your spin on things and I have mine (IMO). It is a question of which spin your prepared to live with based upon our differing journeys.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Pete