Jesus' Spiritual Teaching and the Mirroring of Spirit

[Fool]

In jesus methodology of spirituality, jesus himself isn't a requirement?

in fact, he's stumbling block at some point?

john 16:17

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

 

[Bthoth]

In jesus methodology of spirituality, jesus himself isn't a requirement?

in fact, he's stumbling block at some point?

Jesus is not the problem, it's always been the people that have embellished the stories that have always been the problem.

john 16:17

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

At least he was honest: He was not that guy.

 

[Fool]

Jesus is not the problem, it's always been the people that have embellished the stories that have always been the problem.

I disagree, obviously. It's people who have tried to turn the teaching into an anthropolatry vs self-enlightenment because all are god's children.

At least he was honest: He was not that guy.

codependency is not a positive

 

[Bthoth]

I disagree, obviously. It's people who have tried to turn the teaching into an anthropolatry vs self-enlightenment because all are god's children.

Do I smell a sense of proprietary, as if one group owns god?

codependency is not a positive

 

[Fool]

Do I smell a sense of proprietary, as if one group owns god?

tribalism is often used as a bias

 

[Bthoth]

tribalism isn't often used as a bias

tribalism? Which tribe do you represent?

Is that the excuse of proprietary with that air of exceptionalism?

 

[Fool]

tribalism? Which tribe do you represent?

Is that the excuse of proprietary with that air of exceptionalism?

i don't represent a particular ism. love isn't unique to a tribe a person, a culture, even a species.

familialism, yes. like the idea of arianism

 

[Bthoth]

i don't represent a particular ism. love isn't unique to a tribe a person, a culture, even a species.

My point exactly. Each conscious life is capable. There is no better tribe or exceptionism, chosen ones or proprietary that one owns over and above the rest

familialism, yes. like the idea of arianism

The first word is an ism (tribalism) and that last word exposes a racial scope.

Red yellow, black and white.... the four colors of mankind. Not a one is better than the other and each have a portion to contribute to the whole.

 

[Fool]

My point exactly. Each conscious life is capable. There is no better tribe or exceptionism, chosen ones or proprietary that one owns over and above the rest

The first word is an ism (tribalism) and that last word exposes a racial scope.

Red yellow, black and white.... the four colors of mankind. Not a one is better than the other and each have a portion to contribute to the whole.

tribal and familial are synonyms.

unconditional doesn't have a definite race, color, tribe, gender, etc., etc.,

the potential is always there boundaries are created and instilled by the believer.

but all boundaries are conventions. one can overcome almost any boundary if they can conceive of doing so.


“I understand now that boundaries between noise and sound are conventions. All boundaries are conventions, waiting to be transcended. One may transcend any convention if only one can first conceive of doing so.”
― David Mitchell, Cloud Atlas

 

[Bthoth]

tribal and familial are synonyms.

OK.. Point?

unconditional doesn't have a definite race, color, tribe, gender, etc., etc.,

OK...... nor does capabilities

the potential is always there boundaries are created and instilled by the believer.

What potential? Putting tribe before right and wrong, is clearly an ill regard for personal responsibility

but all boundaries are conventions. one can overcome almost any boundary if they can conceive of doing so.

I agree. Putting up boundaries for tribal/familia of impunity, is inconceivable for equal measure.

“I understand now that boundaries between noise and sound are conventions. All boundaries are conventions, waiting to be transcended. One may transcend any convention if only one can first conceive of doing so.”
― David Mitchell, Cloud Atlas

Best conception is keep the rules before tribe.

 

[Fool]

OK.. Point?

OK...... nor does capabilities

What potential? Putting tribe before right and wrong, is clearly an ill regard for personal responsibility

I agree. Putting up boundaries for tribal/familia of impunity, is inconceivable for equal measure.

Best conception is keep the rules before tribe.

the potential for unconditional love is always within one's power to choose/reject.


you can't serve love and power over others as self

 

[Bthoth]

the potential for unconditional love is always within one's power to choose/reject.

Exactly. The choice to maintain personal responsibility, the commandments, is by the conscious spirit of the individual.
Love is a capability of all conscious life even before instinct sets the tone.

you can't serve love and power over others as self

But if civil society is to exist, all parties must keep the rules.

 

[Fool]

Exactly. The choice to maintain personal responsibility, the commandments, is by the conscious spirit of the individual.
Love is a capability of all conscious life even before instinct sets the tone.

But if civil society is to exist, all parties must keep the rules.

Not all parties take the idea to it's logical conclusion. Those will need to have their free will curtailed. Like psychologically immature beings, children. They will need to be physically handicapped somehow because of their psychological challenge. The need of the greater good is more important than the wants of an out of control individual.

 

[Bthoth]

Not all parties take the idea to it's logical conclusion.

What? No Murder, No steal, no false witness, no adultery, honor ma and pa........ Are by majority of the US legal systems.

To me, basic common sense that each citizen must remain responsible for their actions.

Those will need to have their free will curtailed.

Free will does exist and why the choice must be individual

Like psychologically immature beings, children.

Sure.... and the parents in most every culture teach the same basics before the child reaches 10 yrs old

They will need to be physically handicapped somehow because of their psychological challenge.

No..... Keeping the basic of civil society is not a handicap and does not require baby sitting.

The need of the greater good is more important than the wants of an out of control individual.

I agree and why the basic rules (commandments) are as solid now as 3500 yrs ago.

 

[Fool]

What? No Murder, No steal, no false witness, no adultery, honor ma and pa........ Are by majority of the US legal systems.

The logical conclusion is that an individual can't take on the absolute and remain individuated. everyone wants to be loved but not everyone is loving.

No..... Keeping the basic of civil society is not a handicap and does not require baby sitting.

Not everyone wishes to be civil. Thus some form of restraint, prison, penal system would be necessary to curtail those who choose to be uncivil.

I agree and why the basic rules (commandments) are as solid now as 3500 yrs ago.

Love is the law. the whole of the law. the law is to love everyone as you would wish to be loved. simple reciprocity. love is golden

instead of using the idea of a god else where and self can see it as a power within self's empowerment to be of service to all as self vs only service to self

 

[Bthoth]

The logical conclusion is that an individual can't take on the absolute and remain individuated.

Either keep the basic rules or go to jail. Basic civility can exist.

everyone wants to be loved but not everyone is loving.

That is easy to see and identify.

Not everyone wishes to be civil. Thus some form of restraint, prison, penal system would be necessary to curtail those who choose to be uncivil.

OK. no issue with that. But to be universal requires the owners manual to know the rules succinctly.

Love is the law. the whole of the law. the law is to love everyone as you would wish to be loved. simple reciprocity. love is golden

Understood, yet the ambiguity is based on the interpretations. That rule has existed well before bible.

instead of using the idea of a god else where and self can see it as a power within self's empowerment to be of service to all as self vs only service to self

The very reason religions even exist is the same instinct of survival. I trust people are capable if given a chance with straight answers and comprehension.