Here's a conversation that I feel is important enough to post on this site. I've removed the names to protect the innocent. No, I've removed the names because I don't want to shove anyone away who may be considering, not that leaving names necessarily does that in all cases. It's situational.
"I'm not a religious woman. I have no religion. I'm very sad about religion because, for me, my understanding of the spiritual gift that God has given me is for everyone as an individual, and a relationship with God. If this is institutionalized, then it's no longer intimate and you don't evolve spiritually, you understand? It becomes a clique, it becomes a mob." — Lisa Gerrard
Very brave honest statement . . .
Lisa is brave and honest. That's what makes her a brilliant artist.
I'm a highly religious man. My religion is Christianity. I'm very glad about my religion. The spiritual gift God has given me is for everyone (who can accept it) as an individual and together. Coming together in the spirit is what Jesus asked of us. It is magnifying. There are those who institutionalize in a negative sense, but that's not my religion. That's apostasy from Jesus's flock (group as one). It doesn't get more intimate than Jesus's one flock. Their is no continuing to evolve spiritually without the Great Conflation to come. Peace and truth!
Apostasy? A concept created for control of the masses by a priest class. Great Conflation? A far-off event to divert attention from changing the status quo here-and-now. We keep looking for God in the sky or for God to begin some rapturous event or God to save us, but we do not love when we do that. We exhude fear by waiting for someone else to change things instead of acting on love. Pure, unselfish compassion, unconditional love is the pathway to God and is the potential for God in each of us. Like the Inner Light of the Quakers. The Inner Heart, where God is within. Jesus was one of God's sons and daughters who had manifested great compassion. We are all sons and daughters of God. We are born of Love. God is Love. We are particles of Love, as Leo Tolstoy wrote.
You don't believe that there is apostasy from God regardless of who it is you may think invented the concept? That's very strange to me.
I call for the Christian Commons right now. There's no diverting attention in it. I'm not waiting for "the rapture." I don't subscribe to that interpretation — never have.
Do you have unconditional love for Satan, or don't you believe in Jesus's words regarding what is to happen to the entity named "Satan"? I believe Jesus. Do you?
"Satan" is God on a bad day.
Satan and God, Emmanuel Goldstein and Big Brother. Apostasy is a concept of guilt. Guilty for not believing in God? I refuse to feel guilty for thinking for myself. Reason IS NOT the Devil's Whore. Blind obedience nauseates me, as does "worship God or go to Hell." A loving God will send you to Hell if you don't bow down to him? That is not God, that is Satan. A control-freak deserves to be defied. Down with Yahweh, who is the Demiurge, the Creator and God of this World who keeps us in perpetual fear and guilt. The pathway to the True God is available to all once they understand we are One in essence. Why have middlemen speak for the True God? The True God is too large for a church or a dogma. The True God lies within our hearts, minds, and souls. We are Divine Sparks, we are made from Love itself, yet some people continue to punish us for our Inner Light. Yahweh is a murderer and a liar, and a sadist. That descriptions fits with Satan, doesn't it? A violent, angry, vengeful being deserves no worship. Yahweh is a psychopath, like Adolf Hitler. Both ruled over a "Chosen People" for example. More of that "the Elect" bullshit that came from John Calvin. Churches and institutions get in God's way, an infamous example of which are the Pharisees and Sadducees.
"The Letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." — Paul.
The individual is more important than the institution, man is more important than the Sabbath.
The Holy Spirit is Love.
Jesus was but an example of what humanity could become. I put my faith in the Holy Spirit, the Inner Light, the God Within.
The God that is worshipped today by Christian moralists and and condemners is William Blake's Urizen, the angry bearded man who sits in a cloud and judges everybody arbitrarily.
In answer to my question, you don't believe Jesus's words about Satan, which means you aren't a Christian. You know that, right?
You think YHVH, whom Jesus calls Jesus's father, isn't misinterpreted and misrepresented by the Old Covenant and that even in the New, Jesus is wrong about YHVH. Is that your position?
I am more inclined to the Gnostic view, yes.
If it be heresy to you, then make the most it.
I think you should re-read Jesus and look for other ways to read him, other than the Gnostic way. The connotations you've applied above are not the ones I use. I don't see the God of Jesus as being as you've described at all.
It appears to me that you've missed nearly everything Jesus dealt with that addresses and answers everything you've said above.
Whether you like it or not, there are negative consequences for making unrighteous choices.
Assigning the role of Satan to Jesus/God is to miss the whole point of Jesus's message though. Jesus does not do Satan's work. Jesus's God doesn't do Satan's work. Jesus removes the confusion about who is which mentality and spirit.
Again, re-read him but in that light. Look for it. It's there. I can see it plainly.
The only unrighteous thing is ignorance. "Sin" in the ancient Greek, meant "the missing of the mark" like an archer's arrow misses the target, to MAKE A MISTAKE. We all make mistakes, so for a child to be seen as having sin just because they are born is an evil concept, and is anti-life. Ignorance is death, and ignorance of who we truly are (manifestations of God) is what causes evil, hate, fear, war, problems, not "Satan," who is a bogeyman used by religious hierarchs to cow the flock into submission, like in "1984" with the Two Minutes' Hate, Goldstein (the Satan to Big Brother's God) is used to control the emotions of the Party members. Satan, truly, is a term for our collective potential for evil, as it were, born from ignorance of our innate divinity.
"For one thing, never look at anything religiously. Lets take politics out of the equation." Lisa Gerrard
"My understanding of spirituality is if you have known love then you have known God, as God is love. My experience of spirituality is the Spirit of God, which is the entrance of a seed of love expressed by pure unselfish utterances of the heart - being prayer, an outward expression from the spirit that through love unites us with God. This brings trust, faith that love has the power to change the hearts of mankind and prepare them for the truth." — Lisa Gerrard
"It may sound pretentious or self-important, but the things happening on the planet today are making people suffer. I understand culture and spirituality, but I don't like nationalism or religion. Nationalism is a political device and religious people quickly forget the basic tenets (of Christianity), which include thou shalt not kill, for one." — Lisa Gerrard
[Poster 1], to me, you have a very narrow, mundanely literal concept of the Satanic spirit in mind. I don't share it, though I understand where it comes from. I don't get any of what you're saying from my reading of Jesus. He doesn't seem to me to be talking about things the way you have ascribed to him. You seem to approach him as if he was rather immature and not a deep thinker at all. Frankly, his profundity has completely escaped you. You really need to re-read him without a preconceived idea that you are deeper in understanding than he was.
(Am I mistaken that you have read the Gospels?)
Don't you feel that it is important to give credit where due? If you do, then you should consider whether your position is denying Jesus the credit he deserves.
As for taking politics out of "the equation" by not being religious, not looking at things religiously, all that says to me is that you've abandoned perfectly great words just because others have abused them. If those who do wrong in your eyes just keep gobbling up every word you use at the time and you continue retreating, you'll be constantly redefining your language to the extent that you'll lose continuity becoming more and more lost from the Word, which you've already done in large measure. I can barely converse with you about Jesus on account of it.
Religion and politics are fine words that some people have twisted. I use them in their untwisted senses and plan to continue doing so even more so.
Christianity, that thing with the basic tenets that are forgotten, is Jesus's Church and his religion that he founded. Deviation from that is not his Church and not his religion – not Christianity – not his "politics," if you will. You point to his basic teachings about not killing, but you also trash the source, per him, of his teaching.
Jesus was a religious hierarch cowing the flock into submission. Is that your impression of him? You like oneness but not the flock. You seem to think the flock has to be stupid. How is it that coming together in love is both right and stupid at the same time, but ignorance is sin?
Organized religion is spiritual death. Many say they follow Jesus yet they kill and murder and judge and hate. Institutionalization of spirituality turns it insane. God's will is whatever the priests say it is. Women are inferior. Why? Because "God" in the Bible says so. Organized Christianity brought about the crusades, the Inquisition, the arrogance of one group of people over another, that one is "saved" and the rest go to Hell. Not so Christ-like, is it? Salvation for some is a Republican, right-wing conservative idea. Do you believe in God? Yes. Then you're saved. Do you believe in God? Yes. Do you believe in my God? No. Damned for all eternity! Do you believe in God? No. Damned for all eternity!
Am I any more self-contradictory than the Bible itself. In the gospels, the first person to bear witness to the Resurrection at the tomb is different for all four. Because the Bible is the "infallible Word of God" nobody should question why the infallible Word of God was voted on by the Nicene Council. Jesus's divinity was the result of a vote, among other things. Writings by others were deliberately voted out and suppressed because they were a threat to the hegemony of the now Roman-instituted Christianity. Roman "Christianity" has been a scourge on planet earth. They preach peace and wage war, they proclaim love and judge others, they announce truth yet engage in lies. God needs no Pope, Bishop. We need no controller, no middleman who decides which is God's will and what isn't.
you do know the difference between words I type and quotes of others that I type?
There is not one "Oneness." Oneness can be reached on many ways, some violently, some peacefully. The Nazis were Hitler's flock, they were One in their intentions to spread the Third Reich. The Neoconservatives were One in their attempts to advocate State terror against innocent foreigners in other countries, they were a flock. Mindless and obedient, not questioning their motives. That is Big Brother's world, his earth, his politics. Because Big Brother is a God-like figure in 1984, and Goldstein is Satan-like. Both once began on the "Good Side" if you will, of both respective ideologies. Goldstein aided Big Brother during the Revolution, and Satan was once God's most brightest angel. Both were expelled. Satan from Heaven, Goldstein from the Party, and both became the scapegoat for what went wrong. Evidence of Satan's wrongdoings abound in the Bible, evidence of Goldstein's treachery abound in the mind of the Party member who sees apostasy everywhere and thus becomes sickened with paranoia and distrust for their fellow human beings. Seeing Satan in everything is not healthy and divides people.
Besides, Christianity has no monopoly on Christ or God nor salvation, nor should it.
Well, I can see that what I've had to say went in one ear and came out the other a great deal.
You use Christianity as synonymous with Rome, but I repeat myself. That's giving Rome the power to define the term even though it was meant for the Nazarenes or simply the disciples of Christ Jesus, as simple as they were. Their "organized religion" was, among other good things, gathering for common meals and showing love for each other and sharing all things in common (at least many of them). They mostly met in homes, not that meeting in larger places was or is bad. They did gather by the thousands to hear Jesus directly.
You're confused about the Nicene Council, but I won't go into that here. You can read up on it yourself.
You're familiar with the concept of "the priesthood of all believers," correct? It has nothing to do with the Popes.
You know about the pacifist Anabaptists, right? I'm not suggesting that they have it perfectly correct in terms of what Jesus said and did, but they are a far cry from the particular "organized religion" (denominations) you mentioned to denounce the whole concept of religion.
"...the first person to bear witness to the Resurrection at the tomb is different for all four." Why didn't they hide that? More importantly, what do you do with the things concerning which they basically agree? More important than that though is, what do you do with the love and oneness teachings in the Gospel of John, which doesn't even hint at the types of false oneness you mentioned. The Nazis were not one, not by Jesus's definition. That's the one we should be discussing here when we discuss God.
By asking me if I "know the difference between words I [you] type and quotes of others that I [you] type," you must have been confused as to why I think you quoted what you did. Was I mistaken to conclude that you agreed with the quoted material? If you meant others and/or me simply to think about the quoted material without concluding that you agreed with it, I'll certainly accept that explanation. Nothing you've said though has suggested it yet.
As for using the term "monopoly" when speaking of Christ and Christianity, it's nonsensical in terms of what I've already put forth as my position or definition of each. If you believe (it means more than "conservative Republicans" typically claim) in Jesus Christ in terms of what he said and did as can best be understood via the Gospels, then you are a Christian believer, by definition. Railing about the Popes doesn't alter that.
It is wiser to understand that the Popes did not abide by the teachings of Jesus, especially the New Commandment: To love one another as he loved and still loves his closest disciples and friends.
Look, if everything I'm going to say to you will fall on deaf ears and you know it, please tell me so that I won't bother to continue this discussion, such as it is. However, if you are considering the things I am saying and are not dismissing them out of hand but they are giving you pause, then I will feel more inclined to continue dialoguing with you about these matters as time permits.
Yes, I agree with the statements I quoted.
Okay, let me add that the Old Covenant is the Old and the New is the New for a reason. If the understanding of YHVH was to remain the same, there would have been no New. There would have been a coming of one who would have been a bloody warrior and hyper-nationalist who would have said that the DNA of the Jews must be pure and that the behavior of Jew to Jew (ethnically) is all that matters. The rest are, and will forever remain, no higher than dogs.
That un-enhanced understanding about the real nature of YHVH is not what Jesus revealed, far from it.
Jesus was not tempted by YHVH. He was tempted (such as it was) by the spirit that is diametrically opposed to the real YHVH (who is not the Demiurge), the one called Satan, who goes by many other names, including Apollo.
Look, Gnosticism is humanism apart from the real God. Gnosticism is attempted usurpation, making oneself the God in place of the spirit that brought us forth. It is a very shallow and ungrateful (no credit to the spirit that provides) mentality and spiritual condition. Gnosticism is in fact an attempt to become what it claims it hates, which is the Demiurge (the self creator that forgets and usurps the real light/source, who, according to Jesus, is YHVH/Elohim as one).
What is YHVH's true spirit? The answer is Jesus's spirit exactly as Jesus showed here on Earth in both word and deed. They are one.
Who is the one who purges the evil spirit from humanity in the end? YHVH's light in the hearts, minds, and souls of humanity purges the evil spirit from within. We let go of Satan. Satan's claws are removed. The Satanic spirit, the spirit in the proverbial garden that said YHVH is wrong, is removed. Evil did kill. God spoke truth. It was a fall.
Is YHVH/Elohim Jewish or Israelite only? The answer is and always has been absolutely not. That's why Jesus commended so many non-Jews. It's also why the real God peeks through in so many places in even the Old Covenant when non-Israelites and even non-Abrahamic peoples are not only spared the deception of Abraham but the Israelites fail miserably in their violent attempts to lord it over others. Satan has his way with them because they turned their backs on the real God, who is, as the apostle and the Gospel source, John said, love.
What is real love? The absence of evil is real love. What ever has served to kill, whatever has served the cause of the fall, is the opposite of real love. Falsehood is the opposite of real love. Truth, the real truth, the real reality, is God and is real love. They are one no matter what the Old Covenant says. The New Covenant is what I follow. The Old Covenant is part of the road map to the New. I see the mistakes of the people because Jesus did and said what he did for that very reason: my vision, my eternal soul, salvation — Bless him! He is my brother, my family, and I am blessed beyond measure by it.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)