The stream from which the peaceful waters flow gets endlessly diverted by definitions until it is but a trickle... a mere vestige of what once was, and now just the description remains...

Words do not equate to actual truth, they are but a feeble attempt to describe one's belief in such, as learned and internalized within, by those who have sought their own personal truth...

Unlearning teaches more...

Self-acceptance...

Who

definitely.

words can murder a thought.

words can be twisted to suggest murder, too.

words only convey that which can be comprehended after the fact.

Nothing written can be known beforehand, except that the first to write it has depicted that which is known already.

That any word can survive time means that it is inherently echo9ing some aspect of truth.

Being that idolizing words written is vanity and that the machinations given words are murderously maligned by perceptions
also speaks to how the use of words can evvolve over time to mean entirely other than intended.

Especially in light of the fact that English is so vast in its inherent ability to over describe a thought better than any other ( except prehaps the Chinese languages, as I am told, but do not know for certain).

Especially the romantic languages are bereft of the capacity to create words with existing words to the degree that we in the West assume is backwards on their part.

But narrow defintiions are not always the representation of totality that we assume upon them.

All too often words are used to get one close to the point. The point will reveal iteself in its clarity, by the experience being depicted.

Which is why machinations are so detrimental.

The judgement required to establish the consensus of knowledge referenced.

Very elitist, on my part, to eloquate this way, but then, the elitism of our culture also affords the same judgement upon detraction.

Simple is better, but for over 6000 years, it has failed to keeps its promise.

The promise is elusive, and words depict the elusiveness, not the truth.

JMO from my perch

Abra.....

God Left you a Living Testament.... a Will.
And there are instructions and a roadmap included, that will tell you how to go claim in the Will , what was left for you .

Now, what Good is that Will , if you don't open up the Will, and read and go claim what was left for you.
Right Abra?

Abra.....let's say my father died and left me a legacy , written in his will for me....along with a couple of mil in the bank.

Now....IF I don't get in my car, drive over to the bank and CLAIM what my father left for me...and if I don't go open up the will and READ and CLAIM what legacy he left for me.....well, then the will and the money both , is just going to sit there, right?

In fact, Won't do me any good at all, that my father left me a legacy ,if I just let it sit there.

Abra....something tells me you have gotten some misconscrued instructions on how to claim what Heavenly Father has left for you.
All you got were Some religiousity instructions that led you on a wild goose chase.

But I have news for you, the real instructions to claim what was left in a Will for you,
still awaits you.
The roadmap and instructions to get to the Will, are still right there too..if you look for it.
In fact, it is perhaps lying right there on your coffee table or book shelf right now.... gathering moss.

Abra....YOU go Open up and read the RIGHT instructions this time ,YOURSELF.....instead of staying held back from what was left for you ..... simply because you were MISLED by some religious instruction that was giving out before.

THIS time, YOU go find out for yourelf what awaits you......and You Go CLAIM the REAL Legacy God has left for you.
The Legacy is still there...Waiting for you to Go Read and CLAIM .


God Bless You ,Abra.

YellowRose,

Have you checked out Christian Spiritualism or Progressive Christianity? PC seems to be more of a "return to the source" approach, which would be purist in thought - CS embraces some philosophies that would likely be considered as heretical to the typical meta-Christian view, but retains the basic principles.

When Man becomes TRULY born again , he no longer is left still wondering at it all.... or left still seeking for truth....or still looking for answers ....or still not knowing for sure, what he believes, is truth or not.

When Man becomes TRULY born again ,
he simply KNOWS he has found TRUTH.....cause he simply KNOWS that he knows that he knows, that he has found what his soul has longed for, and sought for so long.
All things become clear.

There is no more searching or wondering....cause the truth has been found...and the truth sets him free..and he has no need to search any longer..

In that case I must have known the truth when I was just a babe since I’ve always been free.

Other people require a pacifier. That’s cool.



You make it sound like God’s dead.

I don’t believe that. If God has something she wants to give me I’m sure she can do it anytime. No need for a will.

I will check into that...ty

you guys have lost me

Well then you're right where everyone else is who's being honest with themselves.

true, Abra.

we all must be honest with ourselves.

God is too, or it's not reciprocal.

It is circular, that the circle not be broken.

Everyone uses different languages, idealogies, names and different symbols to describe and explain perhaps the same meaning; yet some narrow- mindedly cling to their one way of seeing things that religious tolerance, pride and self-righteousness arise. Perhaps we could actually see other possibilities then to believe in one book only.

Her is a example:

Imagine an Englishman, a Frenchman, a Chinese and an Indonesian all looking at a cup. The Englishman says, "That is a cup." The Frenchman answers, "No it's not. It's a tasse." The Chinese comments, "You are both wrong. It's a pei." And the Indonesian laughs at the others and says "What a fool you are. It's a cawan." The Englishman get a dictionary and shows it to the others saying, "I can prove that it is a cup. My dictionary says so." "Then your dictionary is wrong," says the Frenchman "because my dictionary clearly says it is a tasse." The Chinese scoffs at them. "My dictionary is thousands of years older than yours, so my dictionary must be right. And besides, more people speak Chinese than any other language, so it must be pei." While they are squabbling and arguing with each other, a Buddhist comes up and drinks from the cup. After he has drunk, he says to the others, "Whether you call it a cup, a tasse, a pei or a cawan, the purpose of the cup is to be used. Stop arguing and drink, stop squabbling and refresh your thirst". This is the Buddhist attitude to other religions.

To be is to know that you are. That's what I know, and for me, that's quite enough. That "I am" is pretty damn amazing I think.

That people come up to me and ask me what church I go to or what religion I claim to be part of to me strikes me as an irrelevant inquiry.

They are just in need of a label to judge you with or they are in search of a common ground to befriend you on, or they just want to place you in their mind as friend or foe.

To me, its irrelevant. None of that or this even matters. Whether I die forever or live forever. It is what it is, and I don't think I can do much about it.

Now matters. I exist now. That matters. That is a fact that still amazes me. Its a miracle.

JeannieB

I think we should call the fluid vessel a “Jeannie Beanie Jar” and we should refer to the liquid inside as “Love Potion number 9”

What the soul longs for is love, so he is probably feeling that.

But only fools are positive.

You can only know what you are, what you experience. I don't know what anyone means when they talk of such obscure things as being "truly born again."

But truth is the I AM existence of source within. It is the true self. When you find that, then you are home. There is no where else to go.

Like the saying, no matter where you go.... THERE YOU ARE!

That to me is being born again, and it has nothing to do with the dogma of any religion.

JeannieB

..takes a drink out of her jeanniebeanie jar and stumbles off into the night.....

<----sitting in the corner watching

Abra;

I think we're amiss in our semantics here. I've always understood Agnostic to mean either a doubt as to whether there is a God (given a lack of acceptable proof), or the belief that it is impossible to know if God exists. Either way - it really falls on what one deems as "acceptable proof". I find the mere fact that I'm breathing to be prof enough of God. I am unable to stop breathing through my sheer will - it is beyond my control. And were I to stop breathing (for a length of time beyond passing out), it would be beyond my capacity to simply determine I'll start breathing again. This is acceptable proof to me. And it is just the tip of the iceburg in terms of what I deem as proof of God's existance. I have no doubt about the matter - and do not believe it is impossible to prove God exists. I am not an Agnostic. Therefore, according to my understanding of an agnostic - I feel your claim that I am one is false.

Abra, sounds like you and I have similar beliefs in most aspects. I for one don't believe in the biblical God (for any religion) as I don't believe the supreme creator of everything would limit himself to one small region of one small planet in the vast limitless (as far as we know) universe that he created. And I say 'he' generally as God is probably beyond all things we can comprehend, sex included.

I don't believe any religion has gotten it right. But I do believe there is a little truth to be found in all religions. To each his/her own.

I can’t argue with that. Everyone has their own perceptions of ideas and concepts.

You believe that fact that you can’t control your own breath to be proof of God.

Jeanniebean accepts the simple knowledge that “I AM” to prove that she is a manifestation of God.

I supposed within that context then, I’m in with Jeanniebean.

However, this then isn’t about being agnostic but about how we define the meaning of “God”.

Usually when a Christian speaks of God, they are speaking about the Biblical picture of God.

You’re ‘breath proof’, does not prove that Biblical picture of God is correct. You’re ‘breath proof’ could be used to prove any God. And moreover, Atheists clearly aren’t in agreement with you that just because they have to breath to remain functional as biological animals doesn’t prove the existence of a God.

In fact, they might ask you if God breathes? According to the Bible God breathed life into Adam. This suggests that God breathes. Therefore, according your proof implies that God must also have a God that breathed life into him, and so on.

All you are really saying boils down to, “Since the universe exists it must have had a creator”.

But then using that same logic we must conclude that if a creator exists, then it must have had a creator, ad infinitum.

~~~

I think when it comes to discussions of “God” with respect to humans things get tricky.

If all we mean by “God” is some entity or force that has the potential to keep our souls (our human consciousness) alive for all of eternity, then no one really knows whether that’s going to happen or not.

The Bible claims that it will (for a very select few). The path is straight and the gate is narrow and many who claim to know him he will not recognize.

The Biblical account of God is all about a very elite club. People think all you need to do is say, “A accept Jesus as my Lord and Savoir” and they’ll automatically win a free ticket to everlasting nirvana. But I have no clue why people think that. That’s certainly not what the Bible says. According to the Bible the path is straight and the gate is narrow and few will make it.

The vast majority of people who call themselves “Christians” are going to be rejected by that biblical picture of God according to it’s very own prophecy.

If Jeanniebean’s God is true then all human ‘souls’ will life forever. There are no conditions for the lottery. It’s just our underlying true nature. God created the universe in such a way that it truly is perfect, in that no soul can be lost.

Those are two possible pictures of a God. No one knows which picture might be correct if any. And your observation that you breath doesn’t really prove that either picture is correct. In fact it doesn’t even prove that you’ll continue to have consciousness after your body dies at all. On the contrary, when we hold our breath we ‘black out’. So if breathing proves anything it just implies that when you stop breathing that’s it.

And atheists would say, that’s exactly right. They claim that there is no “God” who will preserve our egos (our consciousness) when we die. They believe our consciousness arises from our brain and when the brain goes kaput so do we.

I don’t think anyone has any proof of which of these three scenarios might be true or not.

If I’m going to believe in a sustaining “God” or spirit. Why not believe that everyone is sustained. Why believe that it’s just going to be an elite select few? That would be an imperfect God that turns his back on the vast majority of souls he creates. And remember, that’s what the biblical picture is saying, only very few are going to see eternal life if that story is true.

The pantheistic idea is that everyone is spirit. All survive. God is truly omniscient, omnipotent and has genuine unconditional love. An unconditional love that is so unconditional that humans have a hard time grasping it. They are too anxious too see someone sent to hell to pay for the things they didn’t like.

As far as I’m concerned, the vast majority of ‘proof’ points to pantheism. If there is a God at all.

However, because I’m an extremely reasonable person I have to grant the atheists the possibility that they could be right. I can’t rule that out. So for that reason alone I must confess to myself that I’m ultimately agnostic (i.e. I can’t say with 100% certainty what’s going on), and I personally don’t believe that anyone else can either.

I think that if you are truly a pantheist you can't possibly also be agnostic because a pantheist is part of God, knows that he exists by his very experience of his own self awareness.

Therefore as Eljay says, your own existence is proof of God.

I also knew a mathematician who had mathematical proof that God existed. He gave me the formula but of course I am terrible at math, so it was meaningless to me. I think I still have it here on my computer somewhere, but it would take an act of God to find it.

Jeannie