I just found these interesting descriptions of the spiritual path, in which B.R's description is included. I could easily imagine though that she would disagree with the interpretation given there with regard to no-self:
MAPS OF THE SPIRITUAL JOURNEY BACK HOME
- A Western Perspective -
http://www.thecourse.org.uk/wpaths.html

Maybe because God in Himself is so completely different -so much greater- than anything we can imagine, anything we are familiar with in this world, that God through B.R. can only say to anyone who tries to describe God or the condition of no-self: "This is not it, that is not it..."

A few things I read in Forcing the Fit which I would like to mention here:

"The point is: the Unitive State is not man's ultimate state, rather it is the Unitive State that leads to and ends in the ultimate heavenly state. And let me add, No-Self is also not the ultimate heavenly state. No-Self is not even meant for this world, it is not the condition in which God intended man to live, which condition is the Unitive State. So Mr. Arraj need not worry because No-Self is "beyond" the Unitive State. Barring a specific miracle of God, nobody would be around to even talk about it"

This makes me wonder if it would be such a divine desire to want to go beyond the condition -the Unitive State- God intended man to live in... and if it really was a miracle intended by God that she went beyond the Unitive State. He might have intended it as B.R., but would He intend it as Himself for a human, including for B.R.? By her own words this does seem unlikely. It seems more that she forced herself to go beyond the Unitive State, and I am not sure that was a miracle of His.

She also writes:

"As it stands, however, the human mind cannot even think of No-Self or imagine any life without self, much less can self get rid of itself, only God can do this."

Again, I believe she is right in that it was God Who as B.R. made an effort to get rid of those powers which arose with that interior flame -and with that as B.R. got rid of experiencing the Unitive State- but am not convinced God as Himself would have willed that for her. Except to teach us a valuable lesson about no-self as it is promoted by so many non-dualist teachers.

I don't remember having read anywhere in the mystical literature about a state of no-self. Says Bernadette:

"Had John of the Cross and others talked about this we'd never have heard of them -obviously they knew when to quit. But this is exactly why you will not find No-Self (or what I mean by this) in the works of Christian mystics. Indeed, had I written the book in the Monastery it would never have seen the light of day."

"John of the Cross and other mystics never talked about No-Self -they'd only have been thrown out, burned perhaps."

In The Path To No-Self she wrote:

"While we can rest assured that St. John of the Cross came into the full vision of his quest, he unfortunately left no account of how it finally came about, nor left any map of how we might find our way to the same end."

And:

"At any rate we are getting closer to understanding why those who have come upon a permanent state of no-self are never heard from. Either they remain silent, or they will be silenced. Simple as that.

And:

"That some of the well-known mystics did not leave us an account is not proof that this state was not known to others, nor proof that it, somehow, falls outside the tradition. No-self is actually a further step in the tradition, and if we do not find it up front, it is because it has been swept under the carpet; it has never been adequately understood."
(Phase IV.)

In Forcing the Fit she writes:

"A point I want to make, however, is that in the Unitive State there are further experiences, noteworthy among them are passing experiences of No-Self (I used to think of this as "sink-in and sink-out"). John of the Cross and others speak of these experiences -- see my quote from St. Bernard in my essay "Mystical Theology and No-Self." It is because we do not see how it would be possible to remain in such a selfless state and still get around in this world that we regard these passing experiences as a touch of heaven, a state that awaits us on the other shore. These passing experiences, however, not only alert us to the fact man's final estate is beyond this earthly Unitive State, but it alerts us that in this heavenly estate there is no self-awareness at all - as St. Bernard put it: we cease to be aware of our own existence. John of the Cross calls this a "Beatific Transformation" - beyond the Unitive State, that is."

This latter description -to an extend- conforms with what I have experienced, but which has become a memory to me now. In the full Unitive State there was no personal consciousness of my human self. There was no consciousness of my body nor of this world. Yet my body must have functioned normally -as if on automatic pilot- because I found myself sweeping the floor of my room, and preparing some food in the kitchen during the brief moments I came back to this world. Even then I felt a great joyful deep peace, which a moment afterwards increased again to such hight, that it was too great to fit into my human consciousness. But there certainly was the awareness of God without the consciousness of being a separate human me. It was God's Self-awareness, and it was Heaven indeed.

Still it was so great that I cannot consciously remember how great the Love and Peaceful Joy actually was. I can only remember how it felt when it was partially toned down during those moments I was somewhat back in this world, and how it increased until there was only God again. But God is too great to be grasped by my human mind, so He was beyond my human understanding then, but not beyond actually experiencing Him: He was experiencing Himself.

I certainly would not call that having gone beyond the Unitive State. On the contrary, it was way beyond the human self-experience, but not beyond God's experience of Himself. And to think that God created us to not have us enjoy His Self, but to get rid of us so He can be Himself without us, makes no sense. Why would He have bothered to create us as souls in the first place then?

My experiences taught me that God does desire for us to enjoy Him, and that this is the only reason He has for creating us. So that these thus created vessels might be completely filled with Himself, their selves transmuted into His Self, yet at the same time not losing their individuality, His individuality, as an Extension of Himself, also called God's Son, while simultaneously completely one with Him, He in them, and they in Him, in a divine mutual Love, God loving Himself, His Holy Spirit.

I still find in Bernadette's understanding a mixture of truth with some ingredient in it that might not be entirely true. But I might be mistaken. Only God knows.

In the mean time:

"Eat not in forbidden pastures (those of this life), because blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice, for they will be satisfied [Mt. 5:6]. What God seeks, he being himself God by nature, is to make us gods through participation, just as fire converts all things into fire."

St. John of the Cross, Sayings of Light and Love, saying 107:
http://www.karmel.at/ics/john/dichos.htm

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lode,

As you know, a name is basically a symbol for someone's self-awareness of
identity. In this world we think that we know what someone's identity is
if he or she gives us their name. We are even asked to identify ourselves
with the use of a card with our human name and photograph on it.
With this in mind, since we are asked to do things in the Name of God, to
me that means in God's Self-awareness of Identity in His human appearance;
ours now.

It is written about the second coming into this world of God in His human
appearance:
"And as He sat upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him
privately, saying, "Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be
the sign of Thy coming and of the end of the world?"
And Jesus answered and said unto them, "Take heed that no man deceive you;
for many shall come in My name, saying, `I am Christ,' and shall deceive
many."

"Then if any man shall say unto you, `Lo, here is Christ,' or `there,'
believe it not.
For there shall arise false christs and false prophets and shall show
great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall
deceive the very elect.
Behold, I have told you before.
Therefore, if they shall say unto you, `Behold, He is in the desert!' go
not forth; or `Behold, He is in the secret chambers!' believe it not.
For as the lightning cometh out of the east and shineth even unto the
west, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be."
(Matthew 24: 3-5, 23-27)

So if today a man would appear looking like we imagine Christ looks like,
even if he descended from the clouds and would say "I am Christ" -claiming
it exclusively for himself, thus excluding the rest of us- we should not believe him.
And if he himself would not say it, but someone else would point him out to us with
"Lo, here is Christ," or "there" -that someone excluding himself and us- we should not
believe it either

How is the second coming to take place then? St. Augustine -in his book
City of God- said it would be as each one of us, one by one. Meaning that
only someone who would say "We all are in reality the Christ; God in His
human appearance" would not be a false prophet.
Confirming this, from St. Augustine's commentaries on the Gospel of St. John,
the following is written on the website of the Vatican:

"Let us rejoice, therefore, and give thanks to God: not only have we
become Christians, but we have become Christ Himself. Do you understand,
brothers? Are you aware of the grace which God has poured out upon us? Be
glad and amazed: we have become Christ! If Christ is the head and we the
members, he and we are the complete man." (St Augustine, In Iohannis
evangelium tractatus, tr. 21, 8).
(In the middle of this webpage):
http://www.vatican.va/roman_cu...to-de-cristo_en.html

This understanding is the enlightenment of which it is said "as the
lightning cometh out of the east and shineth even unto the west, so shall
also the coming of the Son of Man be."

"Son of Man" also -not only "Son of God"- because this Awareness is born and given
to light in -and by- mankind; God is giving birth to It through us, even as we.

"Ask ye now, and see whether a man doth travail with child? Why do I see every man
with his hands on his loins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness?"
(Jeremiah 30:6)

excellent post Lode... said very well.. there are many on the earth who love God who are 'getting' this as we awaken into who we are in Him....




rich in His mercy...

christine

What is really good for you, is good for God.

So good for You! And for everyone who is experiencing what You describe!

Lode quoted BR earlier, regarding the snuffing out of powerful energies.

"About this unmasking, what is worth noting is the method of discernment. The energies were deemed inappropriate for the simple and obvious reason that they did not fit naturally, they were incongruous with the personality because they could not be incorporated into the known self."

That is an appropriate discernment principle, but by no means the only one. Charismatic gifts or energies, for example, are given for the use of others and so aren't meant to "fit naturally" or "be incorporated into the known self." The more traditional discernment principle focuses on what spiritual fruits or lack thereof come from an energy process like this. Additionally, this discernment is generally undertaken in dialogue with a spiritual director, and one never hears in BR anything about a spiritual director, nor the Holy Spirit, for that matter.

Jeremiah the prophet writes about an impulse to prophecy that he tries to resist, but cannot, in the end, fail to give expression to. One wonders if BR missed such an opportunity.

- - -

Another brief comment: all these points she makes about how "no-self" is not for this world, and how it is virtually unknown. . .

Well, the Buddhists are onto it, as she herself noted in the first edition of The Experience of No-Self. She also has a chapter about this in What is Self? Here's a quote from the "Experience" book:

quote:

But when the self disappears forever into this Great Silence, we come upon the Buddhist discovery of no-self..." (p. 109) "Then finally, we come upon the peak of Hindu discovery, namely: "that" which remains when there is no self is identical with "that" which Is, the one Existent that is all that Is." (p. 109)

Interestingly, those references are not found in later editions of the book. Now she states that her "interpretations" come from revelation and are implicit in the experiences themselves, but note that her earlier interpretations seemed to suggest that the highest mystical experience was to be found in Hinduism!!

There is interpreting going on, here. See?

quote:

I felt it taught me nothing about God, and had much to do with externals, other people, and the superficial.

Especially that "other people" in a derogatory interpretation is painful to behold. Again God as Bernadette is -unbeknown to her- helping us realize that lack of love of our neighbor is not in accordance with our innate moral ideal. Because that is not how we really are, as God is not like that. All to the contrary.
In the sense that morally speaking we only truly esteem perfect unselfish love, we already do love God. God cannot not love perfect unselfish Love, even if with that He is loving Himself. And rightly so. And He would continue to only love unselfish love as His highest moral ideal, and morally condemn Himself as a human, for as long as He would be under the impression and believe that He were but a selfish creature; His cross.

Ironic how precisely the inner flame burning in Bernadette wanting to reach out to help others was actually teaching exactly how God is... and therefore Who we all really are.

But God in His human appearance is also learning before He teaches. As a parable of this process:

"And Jesus advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men."
(Luke 2:52 [Douay-Rheims])
"And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man."
(KJV)

God as we certainly is learning how to consciously recognize -know again- His glory, and thus even in His humanity increase in grace and love -favor- towards Himself as such.

PS:
Maybe with "other people" she meant "knowing things about others that were not nice, but seemed only to be true on the surface, while in truth those things were not true about Who they really are."

In any case, as long as I see a splinter in someone else's eye, I still have a beam in my own. Meaning that my vision of Who my neighbor really is is still obstructed, and I still don't recognize my glory in my brother or sister. So I better stop judging, and instead wait for God to see through my spiritual eyes.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lode,

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
Lode quoted BR earlier, regarding the snuffing out of powerful energies.

"About this unmasking, what is worth noting is the method of discernment. The energies were deemed inappropriate for the simple and obvious reason that they did not fit naturally, they were incongruous with the personality because they could not be incorporated into the known self."

That is an appropriate discernment principle, but by no means the only one. Charismatic gifts or energies, for example, are given for the use of others and so aren't meant to "fit naturally" or "be incorporated into the known self." The more traditional discernment principle focuses on what spiritual fruits or lack thereof come from an energy process like this. Additionally, this discernment is generally undertaken in dialogue with a spiritual director, and one never hears in BR anything about a spiritual director, nor the Holy Spirit, for that matter.

Jeremiah the prophet writes about an impulse to prophecy that he tries to resist, but cannot, in the end, fail to give expression to. One wonders if BR missed such an opportunity.

Yes, I see what you mean Phil.

I agree with this and what Mary Sue posted too.

It seemed she was more attached to her understanding, like a good lawyer who rigidly latches onto a particluar airtight argument, ignoring the perspective of others to win his case. No mention of the Holy Spirit or the need to consult with a spiritual director are huge red flags of a dangerous kind of independence and self-sufficiency.

In reading that clip that you posted from her book, Lode, BR seemed determined to avoid giving into what she clearly saw was either of God or some aspecct of her self. Note, she was not concerned it was from satan. . And so, ironically, God may have tested her on her very teaching: that *passivity* to God was parmount on the journey to knowing Him. She worked hard and snuffed out those powers/promptings to interact with the mundane world of peoples' needs (it seems to me) in order to avoid what she felt was too risky and deviating from her personality. She didn't 'look good' in that outfit.

As I read her, BR didn't want to look like a fool by giving into what she associated with as "cheap spirituality."

As you note, Lode: let us not climb so high up the spiritual ladder that we cannot come down to mundane earth where we are required to be contracted, fumbling, risk-taking selves for sake of the poor, hungry, lost, disillusioned, needy people.

quote:

Originally posted by Lode:

quote:

I felt it taught me nothing about God, and had much to do with externals, other people, and the superficial.

Especially that "other people" in a derogatory interpretation is painful to behold. Again God as Bernadette is -unbeknown to her- helping us realize that lack of love of our neighbor is not in accordance with our innate moral ideal. Because that is not how we really are, as God is not like that. All to the contrary. ...

Yes, I agree! Painful to behold indeed! that she seems to degrade these things. She seems to see other peoples' needs and externals as not relevant to knowing God! Good grief! What about feeding His sheep, dearie? And the books on no-self, an attempt to justify her rebellion, perhaps, leave many feeling empty as they are bringing more glory to Buddhism/Hinduism than Christ.

I know this is a serious accusation of sorts, and I admit I am speculating wildly here and not condeming BR in a personal way. But perhaps her no-self state is a kind of banishment, I wonder...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Shasha,

What we morally dislike is dislike us, and we are dislike it.
What is to our moral liking is like us, and we are like it.

B.R. is teaching us what that is by what we feel reading some of her words.

Again, God cannot not be helpful, even as B.R. ; )

Yes, good post, Mary Sue You quoted BR as follows:

quote:

My conclusion was that if, after all these years, God wanted to make me into a medium or give me some mission, He would first have to make it acceptable--make it fit in with my life and personality and, above all, give me the certitude that this was His doing. I figured that, if truly from God, I would never be able to get rid of these powers, but if from some distinguished aspect of the self, then nothing would be lost in getting rid of them. Thus the test was whether I could get rid of them or not.

Earlier, Lode posted this:

quote:

Because they arose from the center, I knew the either belonged to God or to myself--there was no one else around, nothing inside but the two of us; thus the source had to be one or the other. If from God, I felt it should be acceptable to me, fit like a glove, be natural. On the other hand, even if from God, its passage through the self to the outside was enough to taint its purity, and thus it was the self that was unacceptable, either way I looked at it. It seemed to me that a true medium should be selfless so that God's grace could flow through, pure and unfiltered.

This is all most curious, for it seems that it was after the "extinguishing" of these energies that she loses the sense of being in union and enters no-self and then beyond. So for her, as noted, incongruity with what she knows about herself seems primary. I wonder what the Apostles at Pentecost would have said about the tongues of fire that launched them from being fishermen and good old boys to preachers and martyrs. Clearly, it was a stretch for their self-image.

Now I'm seeing this peculiar notion (unnoticed before) that self is somehow "impure" and that only selfless person could be an acceptable medium. So is she saying that her self was impure? Seems like it. But that's never an obstacle to the divine working through us -- thank goodness!

It does seem that these energies were what the East called "siddhis," or powers, and my hunch is that they did, indeed, arise from the deep self. This is not to say that the Spirit would be totally absent in such phenomena, however. That's where we have to look for the fruit.

That's the whole problem: God believing as we that He now has an "impure, evil human ego and self."

It is the crucifixion. All those painful thoughts and memories, encircling our head in a self-feeding loop like a wreath of thorns, each thorn a guilty thought that stings our mind. The hard sharp iron point of the lance our human "I" which stabs our heart with the pain of lack of love, the cross the body with one hand nailed and painfully held impotent so it cannot receive the love we long for, the other hand also painfully paralyzed, not capable to give the love we long to give, our feet painfully fixed, without the freedom to go in the direction we desire... by the hard nails of the human memory, understanding, and will.

Receiving sour wine -vinegar- and gall -bitterness- drenched in a sponge -the brain- stuck on the point of the lance which penetrates it -the ego- instead of the wine -the spiritual enjoyment of the Godhead.

No wonder God as Bernadette did everything possible to get rid of that "evil" self with which He identified as she. Not realizing that that self was His, but without all the human wrapping that like a shroud surrounded it, as if it were buried in a dark cold tomb, dead to Himself.

And all that to teach us what we need to know...

No wonder St. Paul writes that his intent is to know no one among -in- us than Christ, and Him crucified. And that God forbid he should glory in anything but the cross.

And no wonder that wreath of thorns is called a crown.

It is God Who often internally cries out in us as we:
"My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? Why art Thou so far from helping Me, and from the words of My groaning?"

It is He Who -as we counting Himself as one of the humans- bitterly complains and condemns Himself for what He still believes He is with:
"But I am a worm and no man, a reproach of men and despised by the people."
(Psalm 22:1,6)

That is Who we really are beyond the appearances. The One Who would only have His Life, His Glory, and Himself back again when also we would have His Life, His Glory, and Himself. And not a second before we would.

This is also a lesson teaching how a misunderstanding on the human level can prevent or ruin God's coming to Himself in this world. By holding on to the idea that a historical man was somehow special because He was God in human appearance, but that we are not, we can think the following completely confused thoughts, still based on the idea of separation:

"If human nature were truly divine then Christianity would have no place for the Incarnate Christ or divine Logos whose incarnation to its own divine nature. This union of the divine and human IS the the uniqueness of Christ. That Christ never said he was God was because this would not have been true either to the divine's way of knowing or man's way of knowing."
(Forcing the Fit, p.96)

Ironic that with this thought God is still unaware of Who He is, and still accuses Himself as we (and to "stone" means throwing hard painful thoughts at someone according to the mystics understanding):

"For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy and because thou, being a man, (or a woman) makest thyself God."

Yet realizing the truth that "I and My Father are one", one also realizes that as an extension or spiritual child of God one is a god:

"Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, `I said "Ye are gods'?"

Again, as St. John of the Cross confirms:

"What God seeks, he being himself God by nature, is to make us gods through participation, just as fire converts all things into fire."
(Sayings of Light and Love, saying 107)

Wrote Bernadette:
"The point: if we actually were God we wouldn't know it because such is not God's knowing way of knowing. We only know God because we are NOT God. The claim that human consciousness can know it is God when even God does not know It, should make us wary of consciousness' capacity for deceit." (Forcing the Fit, p.97)

It must be my confusion that I don't understand that... is it so that God can only know Himself when He is experiencing being separate from Himself in His human consciousness? That would make no sense. So I guess what she means is that God knows Himself in His human appearance in a state where His human consciousness -the consciousness all humans experience- has been transmuted into His divine Self-awareness.

And indeed God is greater in His divinity than in His humanity. The idea is that "going to the Father" is therefore doing something greater -and has greater affects- than intellectually understanding that God's Identity is one's true Identity makes sense to me. Intellectually understanding and accepting something is not the same as actually experiencing it. But she seems to understand that even the Unitive State is not "having gone to the Father", and that the condition of No-Self is therefore greater, there being but God as Father there. As if the Son as an Extension of the Father would then no longer exist. But that makes no sense to me either. The Love of the Father for the Son, and the Son's Love for the Father, as a way of God loving Himself in a sharing way, in His Holy Spirit, would then also cease to exist.

It must be me, but I still don't see how this makes sense, why God as Father would want that, nor how therefore a condition of No-Self would be superior and a still further state beyond the Unitive State.

Frankly, this is either not what she meant, or God as she was suffering from level confusion, or I am suffering from it...

Maybe hers is an example of throwing out the baby with the "tainted" bathwater, instead of letting God in her turn that water into wine for her, and then sharing it with others as well. But considering that lately so many are teaching that the condition of No-Self -Non-Duality- as if one were this dream, and not the dreamer of it, is the ultimate reality, God might have thought to give us an example through her that that condition might not be the highest and most happy making. At least many of her words to others are not sounding very happy making, neither for her nor anyone hearing or reading them.

I am grateful for the following confirmation from Bernadette: that for each one of us as an extension of God to appear as a mere human in this world is indeed a superhumanly divine, heroic and charitable act, part of God's plan for the sharing of Himself with all of us, that we may know how unselfish is the Love -the Charity- of Who we really are:

"If someone could "openly" see God as He is - could bear the vision - and then have to turn back and look at the world he would think he was looking at hell - such at least is the disparity between earthly and heavenly life."
(Forcing the Fit, p.108)

And speaking of this being the dream -in the Bible it says that after God introduced His spirit into Adam, the man -symbol for the living soul- fell asleep- a Turkish Muslim made a short video clip showing that this is God's dream:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6URObxMKwc

About Who is waking up from this dream of death, and begins to enjoy His divinity again -the wine- we read:

"Then the LORD awakened as one out of sleep, like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine."
(Psalm 78:65)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lode,

Lode,

You made me do my homework... After 22 minutes of watching the you tube video I was startled by the claim that Allah is the creator.

I have never known Jesus Christ as Allah, but after doing a little word search I breathed a little easier...( See below)

There really are not words to put to my experience of how Jesus Christ manifested His glorious presence to my heart, mind, soul so I wont even try. Nevertheless, the video was interesting!


"The term is best known in the West for its use by Muslims as a reference to God in the context of Islam. It is also used by Arabic speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Mizrahi Jews, Bahá'ís, Eastern Orthodox Christians and Eastern Catholic Christians, in reference to God.[1][2][3]

The Arabic components that build-up the word "Allah"
The term Allāh is derived from a contraction of the Arabic definite article al- "the" and ʼilāh "deity, god" to al-lāh meaning "the [sole] deity, God" (ho theos monos).[4] Cognates of the name "Allāh" exist in other Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic.[3] Biblical Hebrew mostly uses the plural form (but functional singular) Elohim. The corresponding Aramaic form is ʼĔlāhā ܐܠܗܐ in Biblical Aramaic and ʼAlâhâ ܐܲܠܵܗܵܐ in Syriac.[5]

The name was previously used by pagan Meccans as a reference to the creator deity, possibly the supreme deity in pre-Islamic Arabia.[4][6] The concepts associated with the term Allah (as a deity) differ among religious traditions. In pre-Islamic Arabia amongst pagan Arabs, Allah was not considered the sole divinity, having associates and companions, sons and daughters–a concept which Islam thoroughly and resolutely did away with. In Islam, the name Allah is the supreme and all-comprehensive divine name. All other divine names are believed to refer back to Allah.[7] Allah is unique, the only Deity, creator of the universe and omnipotent.[1][2] Arab Christians today use terms such as Allāh al-ʼAb ( الله الأب, "God the Father") to distinguish their usage from Muslim usage.[8] There are both similarities and differences between the concept of God as portrayed in the Qur'an and the Hebrew Bible.[9] It has also been applied to certain living human beings as personifications of the term and concept.[10][11]

BOING!!

Well, well, well. Seems you NTs are having a real party here on this thread!

I know, I know, -- you can’t help it; it’s your natural temperaments. And yes, Yes, grace builds on nature -- so do continue. Party down.

(Nonetheless, be careful though, because the devil has a masterful intellect and would have you wrapped around his axle.)

Now & then though, don’t forget to remember that elsewhere in the Kingdom, His Kingdom -- not just yours -- there are poor souls living in non-NT ghettos. Feelies. Sensers. Our simple thoughts recall Jesus saying, “Come, Follow Me.” and not: “Come, figure it out.”

The H.S. jiggles our recollection that “He who abides in love, abides in God, and God in Him.” We can’t find the scripture: “He who abides in no-self abides in God.” ‘That sounds Apoc-awful!’ we’d say -- ‘and not scriptural’. We might even exclaim “Yuck!”

Feelies are prone to read books (albeit authored by NTs) entitled Here Now, In Love and not: Here Now, in Consciousness. We’re conscious nonetheless -- just of other things.

Feelies are home-spun simple folk. Sirach’s: “What is committed to you, attend to; for what is hidden is not your concern .” finds a resonance in us.

Anyway, for a’ that and a’ that, here’s a quote from Balthasar’s book Prayer (from its concluding paragraph): “It is impossible for the Christian to escape from the tension of heaven and earth, cross and resurrection, into a purely natural way of living; he is too thoroughly formed by the word of revelation, which has touched him once and for all and made him what he will remain forever. But HOW the word forms him, whether it makes him as one dead or risen, as one who still lives on earth or has his being already in heaven, or one who goes down with the Word to the world below -- is ultimately no concern of his. The contemplative leaves it to the Word to decide in which state of the Word he is to live during his pilgrimage on earth.”

I find stuff like that more inspiring than the ‘no-self vacuum’ stuff.

As a Feelie, I like the statement Fr. Balthasar makes earlier in his book, that: “the curve of contemplation follows the curve of love”. (Not: follows the curve of consciousness, nor the curve of intellect.) God gives us intellect -- we give Him love. That’s His dream ……….. (a Feelie would say).

You take BR, we’ll take Fr. B and together, let’s all take JC -- or rather, let’s let the H.S. take us where HE wills. Hopefully, that will NOT be to the edge of the abyss where Lode nicely posits BR might be standing.

BOING!

From the other side of the tracts,
Pop-pop

gail,

as you probably know, "God" is "Dios" in Spanish, and "Dieu" in French. "Deus" in Latin, "Theos" in Greek. "Jesus Christ" means "Anointed Saviour" and anyone who is anointed by the grace of God, and can bring others to the experience of God also, saving him or her from this illusion of death, is a Christ Jesus.

In a Spanish Bible -I translate- instead of the usual "He" it has:
"Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the Day of Judgment; because as Jesus Christ is, so are we in this world."
(1John 4:17)

The "Day of Judgment" is the "Last Day." And what is the last day of all the days we have known so far?

"Behold, now is the accepted time! Behold, now is the day of salvation!"
(2Cor.6:2)
This indeed is the end of the world as we have known it so far...

Remember St. Augustine says that in reality we are Christ. See the link to the Vatican on the previous page.

According to Matthew Henry "el" in "elohim" -plural of "God"- comes from "óah": "strong."
Sounds a bit like "Allah."

Interesting that "elohim" -gods- appears -by my rough count- 267 times or more in the Old Testament. It usually has been translated as "God."

The first time it appears is in Genesis 5:22.
"And Henoch walked with God: and lived after he begot Mathusala, three hundred years, and begot sons and daughters."

In the original it says:
"And Henoch walked with (the) gods: and lived after he begot Mathusala, three hundred years, and begot sons and daughters."

One more: Psalm 89 (Douay-Rheims) begins with:
"A prayer of Moses the man of God."

While in the original it says:
"A prayer of Moses the man of (the) gods."

It has been translated correctly here and there:
"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; He judgeth among the gods."
(Psalm 82:1)

"O give thanks unto the God of gods, for His mercy endureth for ever."
(Psalm 136:2)

"I will praise Thee with my whole heart; before the gods will I sing praise unto Thee."
(Psalm 138:1)

Yet Paul writes:
"For though there be what are called "gods," whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet to us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we in Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things, and we by Him."
(1 Cor.8:5-6)

All things are made by Him, and nothing was not made by Him. And He always spoke in parables, and never spoke not in parables, according to the NT.
"Made" is not the same as "created." In a dream all things are make believe, all things in dreams are parables, pointing to another reality we call the real world.

It is the disciples who have the honor to wake up the holy Dreamer:

"But as they sailed, He fell asleep. And there came down a storm of wind on the lake, and they were filling with water and were in jeopardy.
And they came to Him and awoke Him, saying, "Master, Master, we perish!" Then He arose, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water; and they ceased, and there was a calm."
(Luke 8:23-24)


pop-pop,

this below short video clip turns me into a "Feely. If I fully concentrate on it, I feel a strong emotional recognition.
I must be a baby, still needing sweet milk to draw me closer to God, not ready for the solid food yet. So be it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...EFWk&feature=related

quote:

This is also a lesson teaching how a misunderstanding on the human level can prevent or ruin God's coming to Himself in this world. By holding on to the idea that a historical man was somehow special because He was God in human appearance, but that we are not, we can think the following completely confused thoughts, still based on the idea of separation:

Hi Lode. I've been too busy to keep up with the discussions here (forget email -- I have over 300 messages I've not gone through yet), plus I caught a cold and the meds keep me from doing much heavy intellectual lifting. But the comment above did catch my eye, and prompt me to request clarification from you, as we do, in Christianity, believe that Jesus of Nazareth was in possession of divinity in a manner different from us, in that he was the divine Son of God incarnate (and we are not). Our partaking in divinity is through him, and not by virtue of the fact that we exist as humans. Are we on the same page, here?

Re. "idea of separation" -- we are ontologically distinct from God, if that's what you mean by separation. Being distinct does not mean separat-ed.

- - -

"What God seeks, he being himself God by nature, is to make us gods through participation, just as fire converts all things into fire."
(Sayings of Light and Love, saying 107)

That's the classical Christian understanding of human deification, or theosis. It's not really a statement about human beings possessing divinity by nature.

Re. BR and her goings on and on and on about God and Self . . . it is very tricky business to presume to say what God's knowing is like. To my understanding, our knowing of God is now and forever will be mediated by Christ in and through our human nature. She's way, way, way off the doctrinal map, at times, unless I'm just misunderstanding her. But, then, she doesn't have a philosophical bone in her body, and it's difficult to try to read philosophical implications into her writing.

Hi there Lode--

"Elohim" can be accurately translated as God or gods, depending on whether the verb connected to it is singular or plural. I'll try to find a link to explain that better than I could.

My faith in God based on experience tells me that the thought that God made one human being so special, so perfect, so divine, that we could never come even close to that person in perfection, and thus never have the same reasons that one person had to be perfectly happy with ourselves, is a blasphemous thought.

The last thing Christ desires -or better said, He does not desire it at all- is that we idolize Him, and feel inferior to Him, and thus be less happy with ourselves than He is with Himself. God would be terribly unjust if He would have given Himself more to one person than to the rest of us.

Even a merely human father or mother who truly loves his of her children would not want one of his or her children to have reasons to love himself completely, and be perfectly happy with himself, but not want for his or her other children that they enjoy that same privilege. What loving parent would want the rest of his or her children to think of one single one of their brothers: "Good for you that you are perfect! But what about us? Are we only to be your admirers, never reaching the fullness of your stature? Never being rightfully able to love ourselves and be as perfectly happy with ourselves as you love yourself and are perfectly happy with yourself?"

How could God -our all powerful, limitlessly loving Father- be less loving toward His spiritual children than a merely human parent is? No way!

Jesus Christ is the One Identity God the Father shares with all of His beloved children equally. That is His justice.

It was precisely this erroneous believe -this grave underestimation of God's Love for us- that brought B.R. to give up the Self in her she could not distinguish from God's Self. The error is unfortunate, mostly for her. And it is most unlikely that God as Himself would say the things about others -and treat others- the way she does. But that is not a reflection of Who she really is, thank God.

Maybe it is time to update the perception of what all those words in Scripture -all parables- really mean. Paul writes that they must be understood spiritually, otherwise they are to us the letter that kills. Spiritually and physically. History makes that clear.

God as God is without sin -He does not miss the mark- but as a human that is a different story. Every time we erroneously believe that God has forsaken us we miss the mark. That is part of the suffering, part of the cross we all made for ourselves. In that sense we all are carpenters. Yet it is still God Who in His human appearance cries out in agony that Who He is has forsaken Him.
Whom of us has never felt that he or she lacks the generating power to make others perfectly happy?

In truth God is not really a human being of course. In that sense God in his human disguise -as St. Augustine calls it- is not someone who can sin. As God that is. But as a human He gets very angry, and calls His neighbors "children of your father the devil", and "generation of vipers, snakes."
Not exactly being Himself then. But that is part of the cross: not experiencing the Love and Joy of God, instead experiencing the very unpleasant feeling of anger. Or crying just like we do, or feeling great fear of dying, as every one of us usually feels. Even though in reality you are immortal. Instead believing that you are a despised "worm." (Ps.22:6)

No wonder it is written as an example for all of us that God came in the appearance of the sinful flesh. What's more, that He made Himself sin! The most hellish experience God could ever suffer. And whom of us has never felt bad -guilty- and suffered for his or her appearance of being a sinful human being? 4:9)

The ego is indeed a total misser of the mark, but it is also a "made" illusion, because God obviously is not how the ego is. And only God is the truth. Anything else is therefore not true, although it might be -and often is- experienced as true and completely real. But our true Identity is God, not our appearing human identity, the sinful flesh God made Himself appear in as each one of us.

Again, it is God Who as we in this world this day boldly judges Himself worthy of His loving Self-recognition, or has to complete His love for Himself as a human still a bit more:
"Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the Day of Judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world." (1John 4:17)

Paul writes that he is not "the body of this death", because the sin in it goes against his love of God and -which is like it- his love of his neighbors as himself: the law of God. And he thanks God for Who he realizes he really is: a by God's grace on Himself Anointed Saviour. (Romans 7)

He also says that by writing his letters to whomever is reading them -being thus the servant of the one reading them- he is not a servant of men, but of the Anointed Saviour.
And he says that by writing them he is not trying to persuade or please man, but God. Persuade God! (Galatians 1:10) And that the one who understands this not only knows God, but now is also known by God. (Galatians 4:9) It is God knowing Himself again, even in His human appearance.

This might not be the way Christians have so far understood things, but that does not necessarily mean that this interpretation is not correct. Let that which is most loving towards your Father, yourself, and you neighbor be the deciding factor for you.

God is in Heaven, and Heaven is in you.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lode,

Ariel Jaffe,

yes, it is also seen as a majestic way of speaking: "We." But still "elohim" literally means gods.

Anyway, personally I am more interested in God's most intimate relationship with us, than words... as I am sure you are. ; )

Hi Lode et al,

Yes, elohim does mean god in the plurality, and was sometimes used in the Hebrew scriptures to refer to the gods of Israel's neighbors. It was also used to refer to Israel's God, in which case it refers to a single entity. Christians see this as an early intuition of the Trinity. For the Hebrews, the plurality indicated the various attributes of the one God: e.g., God of majesty, God of justice, etc.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim
- http://www.godandscience.org/a...getics/triunity.html

---------

In your reflections above, you noted:

quote:

This might not be the way Christians have so far understood things, but that does not necessarily mean that this interpretation is not correct.

Good for you to acknowledge the disparity between your perspective and that of the Church! As for who has the "correct" understanding of Jesus, I'll go with the Church. There are many, many distortions and errors in what you express above -- to many to respond to, but I'll pick out just one:

quote:

In truth God is not really a human being of course. In that sense God in his human disguise -as St. Augustine calls it- is not someone who can sin. As God that is. But as a human He gets very angry, and calls His neighbors "children of your father the devil", and "generation of vipers, snakes."
Not exactly being Himself then.

Christians believe that God became human as Jesus. . . that the humanity of Jesus subsists in the divinity of the Word. What you object to about Jesus' behavior is not incrongruent with God's attitude toward sin and sinful situations.

Maybe check out https://shalomplace.org/eve/for...2410135/m/7524054287 where we reflect in depth on the meaning of the Incarnation.

Those are good links, Phil.

Lode, I don't mean to presume, but it appears to me that you are more interested in recruiting others--the Bible, St. Paul, Augustine--to support your views, rather than being quiet and genuinely being open to hearing their meaning based on the totality of their writings.

Also, regarding "elohim"... there are a number of other Hebrew words that are plural in form (having the "-im" suffix) without being plural in sense. It's simply not that cut and dried to say "elohim" is only correctly translated "the gods", Lode.

quote:

As for who has the "correct" understanding of Jesus, I'll go with the Church.

May I with respect and love for Who you are to me suggest you go with God, instead of with a formal human organization that since long has lost all contact with God, except for a few mystically inspired individuals, and in general believes God has gone on vacation in Heaven, far away from us, craving our adoration as if He had an ego, and that His angels have given up their function of giving us messages from God a long time ago.
All He desires for us is that we exalt Him in ourselves, as our true Identity. He is our Being. Our human appearance is therefore not our true Being, although God is willing for us to appear in it as we now.

God has His dwelling in you, His holy temple, as your Being. As for the Church as an organization of buildings:

"God, who made the world, and all things therein; he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands".
(Acts 7:24)

And St. Augustine writes that one of the meanings of "heaven and earth" is "soul and body."

quote:

Christians believe that God became human as Jesus. . . that the humanity of Jesus subsists in the divinity of the Word. What you object to about Jesus' behavior is not incrongruent with God's attitude toward sin and sinful situations.

Strictly speaking, a Christian -an Anointed one or Christ- is someone who has received the Anointment or Unction of God's grace:

"And as for you, let the unction, which you have received from Him, abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you; but as His unction teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. And as it hath taught you, abide in Him."
(1John 2:27)

That "attitude" of God toward sin and sinful situations is God in His humanity. As a human being He even repents of His previous human anger and returns to His Love and thus Himself when He remembers Who He is.

I already posted it, but since this is so on topic:

"Efraïm" means "very fruitful, doubly fruitful." Obviously by this is meant fruitful in godliness. And "in the midst of you" of course means "in your middle, in the very center of your being, in your essence."

"My heart is turned within Me, My repentance is stirred up. I will not execute the fierceness of Mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim; for I am God, and not man, the Holy One in the midst of thee; and I will not enter into the city."
(Osea 11:9)

How could God repent of anything that He has done? In His divinity that is impossible, because He is all powerful and knows everything, so making mistakes is impossible for Him. But it is precisely His willingness to experience everything we experience as we now, feeling angry at the illusions in this His dream, and feeling guilty for it, and repent, that is His greatness in perfect Charity towards us. He did not will for us to be less happy than He is, so He gave us Himself so completely that He is experiencing being us now.

We are His humanity.

"As the dream of them that awake, O Lord; so in thy city thou shalt bring their image to nothing." (Psalm 72:20)

So in Psalm 78:

"Therefore the LORD heard this and was wroth; so a fire was kindled against Jacob, and anger also rose up against Israel"

"the wrath of God came upon them and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen men of Israel."

"He cast upon them the fierceness of His anger, wrath, indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them.

"He made a path to His anger; He spared not their soul from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence, and smote all the firstborn in Egypt, the chief of their strength in the tabernacles of Ham."

"When God heard this, He was wroth and greatly abhorred Israel, so that He forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent which He had placed among men, and delivered His strength into captivity, and His glory into the enemy's hand.
He gave His people over also unto the sword, and was wroth with His inheritance.
The fire consumed their young men, and their maidens were not given to marriage.
Their priests fell by the sword, and their widows made no lamentation.
Then the LORD awakened as one out of sleep, like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine."

It is completely impossible that God would ever have the slightest reason to feel the hell-fires of anger against anything He created, unless His creation were imperfect. And if it were, He would not be a perfect Creator. But He is, so this is a dream. And even this dream serves His perfect purpose. Which is awakening from it in each and every one of us. That also we might have His Life. Until we experience God -our Life- we are experiencing death:

"Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light."

"Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice." (John 18:37)

As the voice of who do the following words of God thought and spoken in His human appearance sound in you while you read them? Listen internally:

"Amen, amen I say unto you, that the hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live."

Considering that we are called to awaken from this sleep, and be raised from the dead, as long as we don't experience God our Life we experience being in these bodies as if in graves:

"Wonder not at this; for the hour cometh, wherein all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God.
And they that have done good things, shall come forth unto the resurrection of life; but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment."

St. Augustine in his commentary explains that "doing good things" means "believing in God." And this believing is an activity that takes place in one, and that it is God Who does that work of beleiving in us when we believe.
And says he:
"If you believe in Him, you will also believe Him; but not whomever believes Him necessarily believes in Him. The devils believed Him, but they did not believe in Him. The same, in turn, can be said of the apostles; we believe Paul, but we don't believe in Paul."

Obviously because we are not Paul, we cannot do any believing as an activity in Paul. But we can believe in God... as the activity of believing that it takes place in God and in us as His human appearance.

Again, as the voice of who do the following words of God sound in your head while you read them?

"Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life." (St. John 6:47)

Listen again:

"I am he, who am speaking with thee."
"Thou hast both seen him; and it is he that talketh with thee."
(St. John 4:26, 9:37)

"Today if you shall hear his voice, harden not your hearts."
(Psalm 94:8, Hebrews 3:7, 15)

"And in that day the deaf shall hear the words of the book, and out of darkness and obscurity the eyes of the blind shall see."
(Isaiah 29:18)

As long as we think "I am but a human being" we are condemning ourselves, because with that we are saying that we are very imperfect beings. And in this angry judgment God is still full of wrath on Himself as we:

"He that believeth in the Son, hath life everlasting; but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

But I am stopping, because it is impossible that God would accept His own joyous Self-recognition as long as He is under the impression and believe that He is but a human creature. He is too honest for that, and would rather be in hell than give Himself a happiness He still believes is not due Him, but only the God He in His human appearance believes is not Himself, but someone Else... Someone Up there, forgetting that He is in Heaven, and that Heaven is in Himself.

Writes St. Augustine: "Listen to the Father speaking in the passage where thou readest, "The Lord said unto me, Thou art my Son": listen to Him also teaching, in that where thou readest, "Every man that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." The Son, on the other hand, thou hast just heard speaking; for He saith of Himself, "Whatsoever I have said unto you": and if thou wouldst also know Him as a Teacher, bethink thyself of the Master, when He saith, "One is your Master, even Christ."
"The whole Trinity, therefore, both speaketh and teacheth: but were it not also brought before us in its individual personality, it would certainly altogether surpass the power of human weakness to comprehend it." (Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 77, John 14:25-27)

"Since it is in your mind that you hear the words of God spoken when you read Scripture, St. Augustine wanting to make sure that you don't reject the idea that it is indeed God Who you hear speaking with the voice and in the mind He has as you, here are his divinely inspired words:
"But leave outside your garment and yourself, descend into yourself, go to your secret place, your mind, and there see, if you can, that which I am pointing at. For if you are far from yourself, how can you come near to God? I was speaking of God, and you believed that you would understand (instead of God understanding as you). I am speaking of the soul, I am speaking of yourself: understand this, there I will try you. For I do not travel very far for examples, when I mean to give you some similitude to your God from your own mind; because surely not in the body, but in that same mind, was man made after the image of God. Let us seek God in His own similitude; let us recognize the Creator in His own image." (Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 23, John 5:14-40)

This is indeed Lectio Divina: divine reading, divine hearing, divine teaching, and divine learning. Hearing God speak in yourself, as He is using the internal voice He now has as you, His Humanity.

Since this is a dream, God's messengers can make texts appear in it, to help us understand that the messages about Who our true Being is sound as our human voices now, so listen to these words as they sound in your head:

"We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us. He that is not of God, heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error."
(1John 4:6)

It is said here that he who only says that God in the flesh came in the past, and denies that God is also now come in His appearance of the flesh, thus dissolving the Saviour -Jesus- in us, is the Antichrist:

"By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world. You are of God, little children, and have overcome him. Because greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore of the world they speak, and the world heareth them."
(1John 4:2-5)

I feel I have argued enough with God here... trying to persuade Him that He is God.

Thank you very much that you have given me the opportunity and space to share with you and everyone here what comes from the bottom of my heart.

That you may have the peace of God.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lode,

Phil said: As for who has the "correct" understanding of Jesus, I'll go with the Church.

Lode replied: May I respectfully suggest you go with God, instead of with a formal human organization that since long has lost all contact with God, and believes He has gone on vacation in Heaven, far away from us, and that His angels have given up their function of giving us messages from God a long time ago.

-------

True colors time, I see. I kind of thought that's where it was going. This ignorance of and animosity toward the Church is a real problem, Lode. If others want to dialogue with you that's fine with me. I'll not be doing so, however, and, since we are being "respectful," I would ask that you keep your contributions here to one post a day unless someone actively engages you in a discussion.

I feel I have argued enough with God here... trying to persuade Him that He is God.

That makes no sense.

My apologies, I was still not finished editing while you were posting your reply.

It is only that I find it unfortunate that there are so many who don't assimilate -eat the flesh of Christ- the truth that their flesh is the flesh God now appears in as they, and that they don't want others to eat -assimilate- it either. Nor drink -assimilate- the idea that the blood -the spirit, life of the flesh- of God is theirs.

But to me it is still God Who as they deny themselves and others His Self-recognition. And I wish He would also come to His joyful peace as they. And by that I of course mean you too, very much so.

It only would make no sense to say that I argued with God and tried to persuade Him here to accept that He is God if it were indeed not God Who is in you. But I know that thank God you know better than that.

Since it is not at all my intent to upset anyone, I will refrain from posting here any further. I have said so much already anyway that my point is obvious. To repeat the same idea over and over again -even with different arguments and quotations- would be superfluous. And only God could change my mind, but that won't happen, since it was He Who in His grace and benevolence taught me what I know.

During the last two decades and a halve I have read a small library worth of books written by Christians, especially the mystics, and have enjoyed many long conversations with Protestants and Catholics, including a Protestant minister two Catholic priests. I have a dozen different Bibles in English, Spanish and Dutch which I have read extensively. So I am familiar with the doctrines and points of view. Besides that I read many Islamic text including the Koran, Ahadith, commentaries, and Sufi texts, and had many exchanges of ideas with Muslims on their forums.

So far there have only been as few Christian and Muslim who accepted as true what I learned from a series of religious experiences. What I read over all those years only confirms the veracity of those experiences and what I learned from them.

One of the Mexican priests I had conversations with was so popular that he celebrated 3 masses a day, every day of the week, for a full church. He accepted what I shared with him -even asked me to write it down for him- but was concerned that if people would consider this world a dream, they might throw all morals to the wind. But I told him that conscience would still speak, and the laws to protect the citizens would still hold.

The other priest was an American in Mexico who gave advanced seminars to colleagues that came from all over the world to learn from him. I shared my account of my religious experiences with him, and to my great relieve he confirmed that they were genuine. I am still very grateful to him for his kind attention and time he conceded me.

The truth does not depend on the believes of a majority. And I know that what I learned will one happy day be enjoyed by everyone. God is taking care of that in all as who He comes into this world.


Again, thank you for your kind hospitality. Being Who you really are, you helped me become yet a bit more aware of and happy with Who also I am.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lode,

quote:

Since it is not at all my intent to upset anyone, I will refrain from posting here any further. I have said so much already anyway that my point is obvious. To repeat the same idea over and over again -even with different arguments and quotations- would be superfluous. And only God could change my mind, but that won't happen, since it was He Who in His grace and benevolence taught me what I know.

Lode, everyone who posts here regularly has also read copiously on the spiritual life. We also have a deep and mature life of prayer and spiritual service, so we are not children who become upset when we hear heterodox ideas like yours. It's sad that you're so admittedly impervious to dialogue.

So good-bye and best wishes. With the attitude you've expressed in your last two posts, you are clearly wasting your time and ours here.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Phil,