Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 2MAR$ who wrote (12384)	5/28/2002 11:53:10 AM
From: Frederick Smart	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Mars.... >>It really was these earliest orders of Monastics that dotted the landscapes all throughout the middle east that preserved the truest spirit of the teachings of Jesus . Most didn't regard Jesus as "God" , but a very highly centered , and spirtually oriented revealer of God's word thru deed and action and sacrifice. But it seems a whole gambit of worms had been opened up , when they later transformed this doctrince so touching into a melodramatic farce of mythical proportions ....which the Roman Christians were very inclined to do, as in in the other things all things. They were an Empire after all , and a doctrine and theology had to be promoted that would elevate a simple , good and honest rabbai into some huge colosssal mythological diety.>> Contrary to what you claim, what really happened has nothing to with deifying Jesus as God. What actually happened was that mankind inserted himself in the middle and claimed the position of God. The end result was what you would expect: division, separation and confusion. All used for a strategic political purpose to control others. So it was mankind who, in claiming the mantle and position of God, actually worked to divide him up into pieces. And this is all very naturally and logically in perfect accord with mankind's "blackhole matrix" which asserts the control of slavery by claiming, blaming and shaming the unwashed masses who "don't know better" etc. To regard Jesus "as God" is not an insignificant belief. Nor is it complex. It's actually so simple that I find it amazing how this whole truth got so inverted, perverted and distorted over the centuries. But, alas, we know why. We know that whenever mankind claims the mantle of God - either his authority or his rights and powers - there will naturally be division, separation and confusion. Jesus simply stated, as John documented, that "I and the Father are ONE." But, by example, he offered this up to all those who believe "in him" which is to simply state that it's through this small kernal of faith that "God is with us" all the time that we can begin to allow spiritual regeneration, transformation and transmutation to take place in our minds, hearts and souls. In stating that "I and the Father are ONE" Jesus proclaimed the truth behind connection we all have to our sacred divine spiritual inner nature which is centered in our souls which were all made in the "image of God." A simple statement of truth about his and our connection with our Divine Father in Heaven who Jesus Christ Lord is ONE with. When Christ said on several occasions that "only the Father knows" he was stating the truth behind the obvious which is that there is a vast infinite mystery of light, energy and love along this never ending path on Heaven's Royal Highway where this procession of thankful souls loving and blessing one another can be seen. When viewed through the natural-conditional matrix of mankind's claims the Good News of the Gospell appears as just more of the same ideological whitewash designed to achieve some political purpose-end related to control over others. But when we view the Good News through the lens of spirit which is infinite and unconditional, all of mankind's claims simply wash away and become totally irrelevant. We are called to love one another just as we would want to be loved. If we don't want to be loved and if we don't love ourselves then there's nothing more to say or share for there's really nothing to give for we've shut the door on these spiritual truths which come from heaven. But if we can have a child's simple faith in believing that, following the example of our suffering servant Jesus Christ, our Father is with us, loves us unconditionally and is full of mercy and forgiveness then perchance we can let our egoic guard down enough to allow this truth to freely influence us in ways that will allow more of our Lord's love to enter into our minds, hearts and souls in ways that will spread more of his energy, light and love throughout this world. Since, all religions the world over begin with the same essential premise - ie. that there is ONE God and that his essence is ONE - what's the problem with believing this? This is the essense of the Good News. "God is with us!" And I know and proclaim him as Jesus Christ Lord! Others can call him whatever they want. But it's the same ONE God! For we cannot claim Him or possess Him. He is FREE for His love is FREE and unconditional. Period. 119293!!

To: 2MAR$ who wrote (12384)	5/29/2002 12:25:45 AM
From: briskit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 28931

Maybe Romans created and dramatized the idea of Jesus as God. Very early attempts were made to interpret the life and death of Jesus. Paul writes to Phillipi quoting an existent source (a poem or hymn?) saying Jesus did not consider it robbery to be equal with God. The Romans considered Christians atheists for not engaging in emperor worship. They were not likely to advance ideas of a special role played by Jesus. Mark, the most Roman account, utilizes the Messianic secret idea, veiling the person and purpose of the messiah from the apostles, but not women and social outcasts. John, 50 years later, is very straightforward, identifying Jesus with the logos, with God from the beginning. These writings occur within 75 years of the death of Jesus. Paul writes within the lifetime of first-hand witnesses of the events. I think you are referring to creeds which later tried to make specific philosophical distinctions in the various conceptions being offered.