What Happens When You Die?

[ZenMonkey]

No, the Buddha's Enlightenment was not about being intellectually smart, but about seeing things as they are, just as Yeshu did. There is no difference between the Realtiy that the Buddha saw and that which Yeshu saw, but there is a huge difference between what the Buddha saw and what the mythical 'Jesus' claims to have seen. 'Jesus' is a myth overwritten onto Yeshu. The mythical Jesus talking about drinking his blood and eating his flesh is not the words of an enlightened man. They are the words of ignorant men. Yeshu never spoke those words. St. Paul put them into his mouth.

... and you know this how? Are you enlightened? If not, how would you know what an enlightened man would and would not say? John 6 is not written by Paul, but was spoke by Jesus and recorded by John. I've also said my peace on what he meant, which you rejected based on your so called knowledge of what was meant by him. Jesus says in relation to his spill about eating and drinking his flesh and blood - that the words (meanings) were spirit and life (love and deed). Simple explanation coming directly from him that many overlook.

No, I never claimed to be enlightened while others are not enlightened. I said, if you recall, that everyone is already enlightened, but most simply do no realize it.

How do you realize that you are enlightened when you don't claim to be enlighten yourself?

No, there is not only 'life and love'; there is life and death and love and hate, and all of that is just double vision in a singular world. Enlightenment is Absolute Joy, transcendent of all dualities, beyond relative joy and relative suffering, beyond life and death, beyond love and hate, but this Enlightenment, this Absolute Joy, is right here, right now, as it has always been right here, right now. The Ordinary and the Miraculous are not two, but one. This is one world, and we don't know of any other that we go to because someone died on a cross. That is the same kind of thinking that says God is angry and sends locusts, disease, floods and angels of death to punish us. It's just based on fear and ignorance, that's all.

It's all the same. Life and death are one. Love and hate are one. It's all life (physical) and it's all love (spiritual) and even they are connected as one. I agree, I have peace in my mind through life and love. I don't claim enlightenment because there is no enlightenment to be attained. I claim what I know and I know what I claim. Can you do the same? What I Am is what I Am. Are you what you are or what? : hamster :

 

[godnotgod]

When provoked, I react in kind. It's to be expected. I'm defending the love people have for whomever they have it. Jesus is viewed to be Lord by many ... me included, but what that means to me may differ than what it means to others. You have not only called them idolaters, but you accuse their love for others to be false. I could care less if you bash their beliefs, but we're speaking of individuals and their emotional standing ... not beliefs. Beliefs are a dime a dozen and they matter little. People do matter and what they feel for others is real.

What do feelings for others have to do with Idolatrous Love? People initiate Idolatrous Love every day. Couples can live together for years, projecting their egos one upon the other, seeing each other through the filter of their egos, and never really knowing who the other person actually is. When these ideal images of one another finally meet with reality, discord and even hatred is many times the result. The same is true of Idolatrous Love for a deity/idol, as 'love' can be turned to hate if one feels he is rejected by the idol. Happens all the time. I am not saying real love does not exist between people. Nor am I saying that real love does not exist between man and the divine nature. It does. But the divine nature is quite a bit different than some of the images of God that man projects onto it, and Jesus is one of those images. It is a distortion; an exaggeration, just as Satan is an exaggeration; a magnification and projection of something inside of man's consciousness. Both 'Jesus' and 'Satan' are externalized, polarized extremes blown up all out of proportion to the truth.

Real love requires no defense, and therefore, no offense, nor does it take offense, as you have.

Jesus may be 'Lord' in your mind, but in reality, 'Lord' of what? I see Jesus as myth; a monstrous exaggeration of an obscure teaching that most have never really known. Many Christians go so far as to puff their idol up as being the creator of the universe, quite a feat when one considers that the true Lord and giver of life of our world, the Sun, is a bit larger than puny old Jesus who himself derived nourishment from the Sun in every way.

Instead you boast enlightenment and Christ consciousness. I know love, just as we all do. It's peace in my mind, but that does not mean I won't or shouldn't return what is given me by others. Insult me and try to negate my feelings for others and I will defend my self. simple right? Perfectly justified also.

mmmmm.....I don't believe I ever 'boasted' enlightenment and Christ consciousness. Where do you see that? Do you really think I'm that stupid, to not realize that the boastings of the ego cannot possibly be the signs if an enlightened person?

So sorry you decide to take what I have described as a personal insult. But it just goes to demonstrate exactly how entrenched the ego can be. It is simply an observation into human consciousness, and the machinations the ego is capable of, all the while firmly believing what it dictates to be true. Not only is ego projection true of individual consciousness, but even more powerful of collective consciousness as well. Religious groups throughout the ages have viciously warred one against the other via such highly charged states of egoic mentality. Recently, Buddhist monks in Myanmar have rioted against local Muslims, viciously slaughtering over 250 innocent villagers, having been riled up by the ignorant head of their monastery. The ego always takes things as a personal affront. It instead loves to receive adulation and affirmation. That is what feeds it so it can gain perpetuity. It even wants to go on in some imaginary afterlife so it can continue to be gratified.

You boast about something you know nothing about then. I assumed that since you make claims of what it is to be enlightened that you yourself are enlightened. Are you lying when you pretend to know what it means to be enlightened? I can claim what I know and I do claim what I know. Can you do the same? If not, then maybe it would be best to be who you are and speak of what you do know instead of speaking of things you know nothing about.

Enlightenment is simply to see things as they are. If you do not see them as they are, then you will see them as they are not. To say that one can achieve redemption for one's sins and attain the afterlife by drinking blood and eating flesh of an imaginary deity is not to see things as they are; it is to see things as one's beliefs say they are. That's all. Now Chopra is not making things up about some future afterlife after death; all he is saying is that he awakens to what already is, and what already is, is what always has been. This is a direct experience of consciousness, not a belief concocted by the mind. It is a real inner event that requires no idol that one prays to to gain relief from anxiety about death and what comes after.

Then stay on topic instead of judging others for the love they have for those they feel connected to. What was it Chopra said about death? I'm all for getting back to topic. I believe existence extends beyond the physical. Can I prove it? No, but you can't prove it all ends either. It's one of those trivial things I made mention of.

You can't prove it because you make the mistake of separating the 'physical' from the 'non-physical', when no such distinction actually exists in reality. You can't prove what is an illusion to begin with. This is one world, not two, except in your conceptual mind.

I have never strayed from topic. Idolatrous Love has everything to do with it, as 'Jesus' is seen as a divine agent connecting this world to the next, when, in reality, the notion of 'another world' is nothing more than a substantial delusive idea, and so is 'Jesus'.

The mystical experience is always in the present; not in some imaginary future paradise, and that is exactly what Yeshu pointed to when he said: 'the kingdom of God is within you'.

 

[godnotgod]

... and you know this how? Are you enlightened? If not, how would you know what an enlightened man would and would not say? John 6 is not written by Paul, but was spoke by Jesus and recorded by John. I've also said my peace on what he meant, which you rejected based on your so called knowledge of what was meant by him. Jesus says in relation to his spill about eating and drinking his flesh and blood - that the words (meanings) were spirit and life (love and deed). Simple explanation coming directly from him that many overlook.

I don't care what you read in the Bible. Anyone who knows anything knows the Bible cannot be trusted as a reliable source. Why else do you think Yeshu himself said: 'You search the scriptures thinking to gain eternal life, but it is I whom the scriptures point to'.? And so, the mystic knows enough to put the scriptures aside and to look inside his own being, where the living primary source dwells, and not in a written description of the spiritual experience. Yeshu was trying to tell people that they had it all backwards; to go realize the living truth FIRST, and then, with a transformed mind, one can then approach scripture. That way, you will know what you are reading.

I don't want to get into a silly discussion with you about whether I am enlightened or not. I can tell you, however, that anyone who thinks they are going to get their sins washed away via drinking blood and eating flesh is seriously deluded. We can talk about the mechanics of THAT if you wish. It involves projection, transference, persona and shadow, and the concept of the scapegoat. It is, essentially, a psychological event.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't want to get into a silly discussion with you about whether I am enlightened or not. I can tell you, however, that anyone who thinks they are going to get their sins washed away via drinking blood and eating flesh is seriously deluded. We can talk about the mechanics of THAT if you wish. It involves projection, transference, persona and shadow, and the concept of the scapegoat. It is, essentially, a psychological event.

That's symbolic, and how exactly does the scapegoat enter this?

 

[godnotgod]

That's symbolic, and how exactly does the scapegoat enter this?

It is symbolic, but the Mithraic rites actually involved the drinking and eating of a slaughtered bull's blood and flesh as eucharist. But whether symbolic or actual, the principle and the effect are the same.


The scapegoat was a goat that was designated (Hebrew לַעֲזָאזֵֽל ) la-aza'zeyl; either "for absolute removal" (Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon) or possibly "for Azazel" (some modern versions taking the term as a name) and outcast in the desert as part of the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement, that began during the Exodus with the original Tabernacle and continued through the times of the temples in Jerusalem.
Throughout the year, the sins of the ancient Israelites were daily transferred to the regular sin offerings as outlined in the Torah in Leviticus Ch 16. Once a year, on the tenth day of the seventh month in the Jewish calendar, the Day of Atonement, the High Priest of Israel sacrificed a bull for a sin offering for his own sins. Subsequently he took two goats and presented them at the door of the tabernacle with a view to dealing with the corporate sins of God's people — the nation of Israel. Two goats were chosen by lot: one to be "The Lord's Goat", which was offered as a blood sacrifice, and the other to be the "Azazel" scapegoat to be sent away into the wilderness. The blood of the slain goat was taken into the Holy of Holies behind the sacred veil and sprinkled on the mercy seat, the lid of the ark of the covenant. Later in the ceremonies of the day, the High Priest confessed the sins of the Israelites to Yahweh placing them figuratively on the head of the other goat, the Azazel scapegoat, who "took them away" never to be seen again. The sin of the nation was thus "atoned for" (paid for) by the "The Lord's Goat" and "The Azazel Goat".
In Christianity this process prefigures the sacrifice of Christ on the cross through which God has been propitiated and sins can be expiated. Jesus Christ is seen to have fulfilled all of the Biblical "types" - the High Priest who officiates at the ceremony, the Lord's goat that deals with the pollution of sin and the scapegoat that removes the "burden of sin". Christians believe that sinners who own their guilt and confess their sins, exercising faith and trust in the person and sacrifice of Jesus, are forgiven their sins.


Scapegoat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Desert Snake]

It is symbolic, but the Mithraic rites actually involved the drinking and eating of a slaughtered bull's blood and flesh as eucharist. But whether symbolic or actual, the principle and the effect are the same.


The scapegoat was a goat that was designated (Hebrew לַעֲזָאזֵֽל ) la-aza'zeyl; either "for absolute removal" (Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon) or possibly "for Azazel" (some modern versions taking the term as a name) and outcast in the desert as part of the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement, that began during the Exodus with the original Tabernacle and continued through the times of the temples in Jerusalem.
Throughout the year, the sins of the ancient Israelites were daily transferred to the regular sin offerings as outlined in the Torah in Leviticus Ch 16. Once a year, on the tenth day of the seventh month in the Jewish calendar, the Day of Atonement, the High Priest of Israel sacrificed a bull for a sin offering for his own sins. Subsequently he took two goats and presented them at the door of the tabernacle with a view to dealing with the corporate sins of God's people — the nation of Israel. Two goats were chosen by lot: one to be "The Lord's Goat", which was offered as a blood sacrifice, and the other to be the "Azazel" scapegoat to be sent away into the wilderness. The blood of the slain goat was taken into the Holy of Holies behind the sacred veil and sprinkled on the mercy seat, the lid of the ark of the covenant. Later in the ceremonies of the day, the High Priest confessed the sins of the Israelites to Yahweh placing them figuratively on the head of the other goat, the Azazel scapegoat, who "took them away" never to be seen again. The sin of the nation was thus "atoned for" (paid for) by the "The Lord's Goat" and "The Azazel Goat".
In Christianity this process prefigures the sacrifice of Christ on the cross through which God has been propitiated and sins can be expiated. Jesus Christ is seen to have fulfilled all of the Biblical "types" - the High Priest who officiates at the ceremony, the Lord's goat that deals with the pollution of sin and the scapegoat that removes the "burden of sin". Christians believe that sinners who own their guilt and confess their sins, exercising faith and trust in the person and sacrifice of Jesus, are forgiven their sins.


Scapegoat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmmm interesting.

 

[ZenMonkey]

I don't care what you read in the Bible. Anyone who knows anything knows the Bible cannot be trusted as a reliable source. Why else do you think Yeshu himself said: 'You search the scriptures thinking to gain eternal life, but it is I whom the scriptures point to'.? And so, the mystic knows enough to put the scriptures aside and to look inside his own being, where the living primary source dwells, and not in a written description of the spiritual experience. Yeshu was trying to tell people that they had it all backwards; to go realize the living truth FIRST, and then, with a transformed mind, one can then approach scripture. That way, you will know what you are reading.

I don't want to get into a silly discussion with you about whether I am enlightened or not. I can tell you, however, that anyone who thinks they are going to get their sins washed away via drinking blood and eating flesh is seriously deluded. We can talk about the mechanics of THAT if you wish. It involves projection, transference, persona and shadow, and the concept of the scapegoat. It is, essentially, a psychological event.

I might agree and I have suggested as much already.

 

[ZenMonkey]

What do feelings for others have to do with Idolatrous Love? People initiate Idolatrous Love every day. Couples can live together for years, projecting their egos one upon the other, seeing each other through the filter of their egos, and never really knowing who the other person actually is. When these ideal images of one another finally meet with reality, discord and even hatred is many times the result. The same is true of Idolatrous Love for a deity/idol, as 'love' can be turned to hate if one feels he is rejected by the idol. Happens all the time. I am not saying real love does not exist between people. Nor am I saying that real love does not exist between man and the divine nature. It does. But the divine nature is quite a bit different than some of the images of God that man projects onto it, and Jesus is one of those images. It is a distortion; an exaggeration, just as Satan is an exaggeration; a magnification and projection of something inside of man's consciousness. Both 'Jesus' and 'Satan' are externalized, polarized extremes blown up all out of proportion to the truth.

Real love requires no defense, and therefore, no offense, nor does it take offense, as you have.

Jesus may be 'Lord' in your mind, but in reality, 'Lord' of what? I see Jesus as myth; a monstrous exaggeration of an obscure teaching that most have never really known. Many Christians go so far as to puff their idol up as being the creator of the universe, quite a feat when one considers that the true Lord and giver of life of our world, the Sun, is a bit larger than puny old Jesus who himself derived nourishment from the Sun in every way.

So how does calling others idolaters for loving another show any degree of enlightenment? How does calling others delusional because of their love for another show any degree of enlightenment? Since when is there any degree of enlightenment in calling men of honor and love puny? Since when are we suppose to roll over and take such accusations w/o offense? That's not the love I know. Love may be easy, but it doesn't mean we are to let others abuse us verbally without defense. It seems you don't want to be held accountable for your words and attitude towards those who believe differently than you. Do you think your method is honorable?

mmmmm.....I don't believe I ever 'boasted' enlightenment and Christ consciousness. Where do you see that? Do you really think I'm that stupid, to not realize that the boastings of the ego cannot possibly be the signs if an enlightened person?

So sorry you decide to take what I have described as a personal insult. But it just goes to demonstrate exactly how entrenched the ego can be. It is simply an observation into human consciousness, and the machinations the ego is capable of, all the while firmly believing what it dictates to be true. Not only is ego projection true of individual consciousness, but even more powerful of collective consciousness as well. Religious groups throughout the ages have viciously warred one against the other via such highly charged states of egoic mentality. Recently, Buddhist monks in Myanmar have rioted against local Muslims, viciously slaughtering over 250 innocent villagers, having been riled up by the ignorant head of their monastery. The ego always takes things as a personal affront. It instead loves to receive adulation and affirmation. That is what feeds it so it can gain perpetuity. It even wants to go on in some imaginary afterlife so it can continue to be gratified.

That's why I find it best to feed the good seed instead of trying to just remove the weeds first. Love doesn't murder, but it will defend. Love doesn't hate, but it will protect.

Enlightenment is simply to see things as they are. If you do not see them as they are, then you will see them as they are not. To say that one can achieve redemption for one's sins and attain the afterlife by drinking blood and eating flesh of an imaginary deity is not to see things as they are; it is to see things as one's beliefs say they are. That's all. Now Chopra is not making things up about some future afterlife after death; all he is saying is that he awakens to what already is, and what already is, is what always has been. This is a direct experience of consciousness, not a belief concocted by the mind. It is a real inner event that requires no idol that one prays to to gain relief from anxiety about death and what comes after.

... none see perfectly. Our understanding is limited. Your focus is on the mind, whereas others focus on the heart.

You can't prove it because you make the mistake of separating the 'physical' from the 'non-physical', when no such distinction actually exists in reality. You can't prove what is an illusion to begin with. This is one world, not two, except in your conceptual mind.

I just stated that all is one. Please try to comprehend what I say. At least read it face value. You're seeing something that isn't there. Maybe you're projecting your own sense of duality.

I have never strayed from topic. Idolatrous Love has everything to do with it, as 'Jesus' is seen as a divine agent connecting this world to the next, when, in reality, the notion of 'another world' is nothing more than a substantial delusive idea, and so is 'Jesus'.

The mystical experience is always in the present; not in some imaginary future paradise, and that is exactly what Yeshu pointed to when he said: 'the kingdom of God is within you'.

Indeed, the kingdom of God is within, but this does not suggest that it is not a literal existence either. I'm not sure why you would even want to take away a comfort such as life after death away from others. Fact: You don't know what comes after. Maybe it best to keep your nose where it belongs ... in matters you know to be accurate.

 

[godnotgod]

So how does calling others idolaters for loving another show any degree of enlightenment? How does calling others delusional because of their love for another show any degree of enlightenment? Since when is there any degree of enlightenment in calling men of honor and love puny? Since when are we suppose to roll over and take such accusations w/o offense? That's not the love I know. Love may be easy, but it doesn't mean we are to let others abuse us verbally without defense. It seems you don't want to be held accountable for your words and attitude towards those who believe differently than you. Do you think your method is honorable?

I never called anyone an idolator. I never said anyone was delusional due to their love. I never claimed enlightenment. The use of the word 'idolators' has a completely different connotation than that of 'idolatrous love'. In Christianity, an idolator is one who makes a conscious choice between worshipping the Christian God and worshipping a physical idol, such as a statue of a pagan deity or an animal. Those who worshipped the Golden Calf while Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments would be idolators. Those Jews who worshipped Moloch were idolators. You are making it look as if I am leveling an accusation against those involved in idolatrous love. This is not a personal attack, but simply an observation of a psychological condition. I am not saying those involved are insincere. They may have the greatest sincerity and be quite wonderful people, but are still deluded. Idolatrous Love is not a condition the practitioner is aware of. That is why it is called Apparent Love. It comes in many forms. It's object can be the apparent love of country, of child, of spuse, etc., called Possesive Love. It can be, as in America, idolatrous love of material wealth, or power, etc. In addiiton, it may just be an excess of devotion or worship.

i·dol·a·trous
Given to blind or excessive devotion to something: "The religiosity of the [group] is self-righteous and idolatrous. It perceives no virtue in its opponents and magnifies its own" (Christopher Lasch).
The Free Dictionary

Specifically, Idolatrous Love in Christianity is further complicated wiht the reward of a heavenly afterlife coupled with the punishment of a hellish one offered for approved and disapproved behavior. This creates an ulterior motive for 'loving' God and Jesus, and that motive takes the form of Idolatrous Love. It also creates a hierarchy of 'my love is better than your love', and 'God/Jesus loves me more than you'. This is seen in the common belief amongst Christians that the evidence can be seen for this because God has 'blessed' America with great wealth and power in comparison to other nations. In Idolatrous Love, there is always an extreme exaggeration of the egoic projected image of God or Jesus or Satan. So the image itself is not real, let alone any real 'love'. Idolatrous Love can be turned to hatred for the idol, dependent upon acceptance/rejection. Real love is absolute and has no opposite.

Real love, or unconditional love, occurs without any promise of reward, nor of any projected image of the ego. In fact, there is no ego, and hence, no image involved; real love of the divine nature is divine union, where the divine nature is not an object of worship or devotion. Divine union is what transforms consciousness so that reality is seen as it actually is, not as the ego wants us to see it as a means of its own self-gratification. Yeshu made this clear when he said:

"Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 18:3 ESV English Standard Version




My reference to Jesus as 'puny' has only to do with comparison of his physical size as a man to that of the Sun, as opposed to the exaggerated image people have of him as the creator of the world, and not of real man,Yeshu, who never made such preposterous claims. There never was anyone called 'Jesus'.

That's why I find it best to feed the good seed instead of trying to just remove the weeds first. Love doesn't murder, but it will defend. Love doesn't hate, but it will protect.

But Idolatrous Love is defensive, and because it is defensive, will at some point take offense, as you have. That's because there is a personal investment of the ego looking for self-gratification and/or validation, and when it does not get it, when it feels it has been slighted, it becomes angered and outraged. Real love is not personal; it is impersonal. It is not about an image, but about essence. Again, that is the trouble with Christianity. It is primarily about the personage of Jesus as an object of worship, rather than the essence that he is supposed to be about. When Yeshu said: 'Before Abraham was, I Am', he was pointing to his essence, not his personage.

... none see perfectly. Our understanding is limited. Your focus is on the mind, whereas others focus on the heart

You only say that because that is what you have been indoctrinated to believe. There is perfect vision, and that is simply to see things as they are.

You make a distinction between mind and heart. I see them as totally integrated. But I further make the distinction between mind and consciousness, 'mind' being a self-created principle.

I just stated that all is one. Please try to comprehend what I say. At least read it face value. You're seeing something that isn't there. Maybe you're projecting your own sense of duality.

No, you are. You said this:

'I believe existence extends beyond the physical.'

....which can only imply the 'non-physical'.

Indeed, the kingdom of God is within, but this does not suggest that it is not a literal existence either. I'm not sure why you would even want to take away a comfort such as life after death away from others. Fact: You don't know what comes after. Maybe it best to keep your nose where it belongs ... in matters you know to be accurate.

Yeshu was not suggesting anything other than what he said. You're trying to embellish the statement, which only says that the kingdom of God is within, and he was speaking in the present tense. There is no 'after', as that implies linear time, which is nothing more than a concept. The only reality is the present moment. There is no other.

There is nothing to take away from others. Everything is completely available to anyone right now, in this present moment, and that is exactly what Yeshu said.

Besides, if there is no afterlife, you would not be present to experience it, so who is there to feel misled?

My nose is always exactly where it should be: in the real present moment, while yours is in some imaginary future with some imaginary idol in some imaginary afterlife.

 

[godnotgod]

Hmmm interesting.

Yes, very. In addition we have the input of Carl Jung:

The Shadow - The Shadow is Carl Jung’s term for all of the aspects of ourselves that, due to inner conflicts resulting from our upbringing, socialization, traumas or from other origins, have been rendered unacceptable to us and that we therefore repress, suppress, deny or disavow through the use of our defense mechanisms. The Shadow can consist not only of parts of us that our culture at large would view as shameful or destructive, but may also include a “Golden Shadow” made up of otherwise constructive talents and strengths that, for one reason or another (ie: they posed a threat to an authority figure’s status), were not valued or were shamed by influential people in our lives. Elements cut off from consciousness within the Shadow may exert an enormous unseen influence in our lives and relationships. As long as we refuse to acknowledge their existence within ourselves, they threaten to project themselves onto others, with the potential for either exaggerated idealization, as may occur in hero worship or romantic attraction, or intense demonization and scapegoating. Indeed, the very occurrence of such experiences points to a likely unconscious origin within some aspects of our own Shadow.

Its opposite is The Persona:

Persona - In between the Ego and the external world, serving as a filter for what comes in, as well as a means of controlling what we show to others, is the Persona. Jung borrowed the term from the word used to describe the masks worn by ancient Greek actors in their plays. We may possess several masks or Personas, and thus display different identities in different situations or when interacting with different people. Like the Ego, the Persona is a complex that emerges from an archetype, in its case the Persona archetype.

Jungian Psychology

 

[ZenMonkey]

I never called anyone an idolator. I never said anyone was delusional due to their love. I never claimed enlightenment. The use of the word 'idolators' has a completely different connotation than that of 'idolatrous love'. In Christianity, an idolator is one who makes a conscious choice between worshipping the Christian God and worshipping a physical idol, such as a statue of a pagan deity or an animal. Those who worshipped the Golden Calf while Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments would be idolators. Those Jews who worshipped Moloch were idolators. You are making it look as if I am leveling an accusation against those involved in idolatrous love. This is not a personal attack, but simply an observation of a psychological condition. I am not saying those involved are insincere. They may have the greatest sincerity and be quite wonderful people, but are still deluded. Idolatrous Love is not a condition the practitioner is aware of. That is why it is called Apparent Love. It comes in many forms. It's object can be the apparent love of country, of child, of spuse, etc., called Possesive Love. It can be, as in America, idolatrous love of material wealth, or power, etc. In addiiton, it may just be an excess of devotion or worship.

i·dol·a·trous
Given to blind or excessive devotion to something: "The religiosity of the [group] is self-righteous and idolatrous. It perceives no virtue in its opponents and magnifies its own" (Christopher Lasch).
The Free Dictionary

Specifically, Idolatrous Love in Christianity is further complicated wiht the reward of a heavenly afterlife coupled with the punishment of a hellish one offered for approved and disapproved behavior. This creates an ulterior motive for 'loving' God and Jesus, and that motive takes the form of Idolatrous Love. It also creates a hierarchy of 'my love is better than your love', and 'God/Jesus loves me more than you'. This is seen in the common belief amongst Christians that the evidence can be seen for this because God has 'blessed' America with great wealth and power in comparison to other nations. In Idolatrous Love, there is always an extreme exaggeration of the egoic projected image of God or Jesus or Satan. So the image itself is not real, let alone any real 'love'. Idolatrous Love can be turned to hatred for the idol, dependent upon acceptance/rejection. Real love is absolute and has no opposite.

Real love, or unconditional love, occurs without any promise of reward, nor of any projected image of the ego. In fact, there is no ego, and hence, no image involved; real love of the divine nature is divine union, where the divine nature is not an object of worship or devotion. Divine union is what transforms consciousness so that reality is seen as it actually is, not as the ego wants us to see it as a means of its own self-gratification. Yeshu made this clear when he said:

"Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 18:3 ESV English Standard Version




My reference to Jesus as 'puny' has only to do with comparison of his physical size as a man to that of the Sun, as opposed to the exaggerated image people have of him as the creator of the world, and not of real man,Yeshu, who never made such preposterous claims. There never was anyone called 'Jesus'.


But Idolatrous Love is defensive, and because it is defensive, will at some point take offense, as you have. That's because there is a personal investment of the ego looking for self-gratification and/or validation, and when it does not get it, when it feels it has been slighted, it becomes angered and outraged. Real love is not personal; it is impersonal. It is not about an image, but about essence. Again, that is the trouble with Christianity. It is primarily about the personage of Jesus as an object of worship, rather than the essence that he is supposed to be about. When Yeshu said: 'Before Abraham was, I Am', he was pointing to his essence, not his personage.

You only say that because that is what you have been indoctrinated to believe. There is perfect vision, and that is simply to see things as they are.

You make a distinction between mind and heart. I see them as totally integrated. But I further make the distinction between mind and consciousness, 'mind' being a self-created principle.





No, you are. You said this:

'I believe existence extends beyond the physical.'

....which can only imply the 'non-physical'.




Yeshu was not suggesting anything other than what he said. You're trying to embellish the statement, which only says that the kingdom of God is within, and he was speaking in the present tense. There is no 'after', as that implies linear time, which is nothing more than a concept. The only reality is the present moment. There is no other.

There is nothing to take away from others. Everything is completely available to anyone right now, in this present moment, and that is exactly what Yeshu said.

Besides, if there is no afterlife, you would not be present to experience it, so who is there to feel misled?

My nose is always exactly where it should be: in the real present moment, while yours is in some imaginary future with some imaginary idol in some imaginary afterlife.

I got defensive because you were being offensive. If I told you that your love for your child is idolatrous and not real would you be offended? Also, I don't focus much on what may or may not come after. I believe life go's on, but that's not my focus. I believe in what Jesus stood for and died for and that is life and love. You seem to have some very serious disdain for people who don't think like you - those who claim Jesus inparticular. You're full of accusations and the venom in your heart is evident. You don't just attack the beliefs, but you attack those who hold them. I'm not above calling you out on your BS.

 

[godnotgod]

I got defensive because you were being offensive. If I told you that your love for your child is idolatrous and not real would you be offended? Also, I don't focus much on what may or may not come after. I believe life go's on, but that's not my focus. I believe in what Jesus stood for and died for and that is life and love. You seem to have some very serious disdain for people who don't think like you - those who claim Jesus inparticular. You're full of accusations and the venom in your heart is evident. You don't just attack the beliefs, but you attack those who hold them. I'm not above calling you out on your BS.

You're defensive because I've called you out on yours.

Making an observation of a condition is not being offensive; it is making an observation of a condition. The 'offensive' part is in YOUR mind, not mine. The reason I make the observation known is because people act on their erroneous beliefs, which causes human misery. There are no grounds, for example, to believe that the drinking and eating of human blood and flesh will get you into a heavenly afterlife. There are no grounds to believe that the image of the historical Jesus is running the world from a place in the sky. The only place where any 'Jesus' exists is in the minds of men.

Many parents think they really love their children, but, alas, it is not real love, but a form of Apparent Love called Possessive Love, also one of the Five Egotistical States via Projection of the Ego:

THE EGOTISTICAL STATES:

2. APPARENT LOVE OF OTHERS BY LOCALIZED EXTENSION OF THE EGO

For example: the binding love of a mother for her child, the binding
love of a man for his country, etc. This is possessive love. In idolatrous love
there was first of all projection of the Ego, and afterwards need of possession
of the projected Ego in a material or subtle possession of the idol. Here there
is first of all possession of the other (it happens by chance that this child is
my child, this country is my country). The affective situation which results
much resembles that of idolatrous love; however the joys are less conscious,
and one often sees the fear of losing the loved object predominate. Idolatrous
love gives what man calls a meaning to his life; possessive love also does
this, but it is often a meaning that is less positive, less satiating.

http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/Hubert-Benoit-The-Supreme-Doctrine.pdf

A nation of children ran away from their parents and other authority figures during the 60's looking for real spiritual nourishment, instead of allowing their parents to make them conform to the image THEY had in mind for them, and calling it 'love'. I have seen Christian parents instill guilt and shame in their children in the name of Jesus, turning them into indoctrinated zombies, and robbing them of their natural childhood.


What did Jesus stand for and die for? His ideas as a political activist and a mystic who professed his divinity. The Romans crucified him for sedition and treason on the one hand, and the Jewish high priests for blasphemy on the other. Fact of the matter is that Yeshu had no idea he was to be crucified.


Paul, not Jesus, was the founder of Christianity as a new religion which developed away from both normal Judaism and the Nazarene variety of Judaism. In this new religion, the Torah was abrogated as having had only temporary validity. The central myth of the new religion was that of an atoning death of a divine being. Belief in this sacrifice, and a mystical sharing of the death of the deity, formed the only path to salvation. Paul derived this religion from Hellenistic sources, chiefly by a fusion of concepts taken from Gnosticism and concepts taken from the mystery religions, particularly from that of Attis. The combination of these elements with features derived from Judaism, particularly the incorporation of the Jewish scriptures, reinterpreted to provide a background of sacred history for the new myth, was unique; and Paul alone was the creator of this amalgam. Jesus himself had no idea of it, and would have been amazed and shocked at the role assigned to him by Paul as a suffering deity. Nor did Paul have any predecessors among the Nazarenes though later mythography tried to assign this role to Stephen, and modern scholars have discovered equally mythical predecessors for Paul in a group called the 'Hellenists'. Paul, as the personal begetter of the Christian myth, has never been given sufficient credit for his originality. The reverence paid through the centuries to the great Saint Paul has quite obscured the more colourful features of his personality. Like many evangelical leaders, he was a compound of sincerity and charlatanry. Evangelical leaders of his kind were common at this time in the Greco-Roman world (e.g. Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana).

The Problem of Paul

 

[ZenMonkey]

You're defensive because I've called you out on yours.

Making an observation of a condition is not being offensive; it is making an observation of a condition. The 'offensive' part is in YOUR mind, not mine. The reason I make the observation known is because people act on their erroneous beliefs, which causes human misery. There are no grounds, for example, to believe that the drinking and eating of human blood and flesh will get you into a heavenly afterlife. There are no grounds to believe that the image of the historical Jesus is running the world from a place in the sky. The only place where any 'Jesus' exists is in the minds of men.

Many parents think they really love their children, but, alas, it is not real love, but a form of Apparent Love called Possessive Love, also one of the Five Egotistical States via Projection of the Ego:

THE EGOTISTICAL STATES:

2. APPARENT LOVE OF OTHERS BY LOCALIZED EXTENSION OF THE EGO

For example: the binding love of a mother for her child, the binding
love of a man for his country, etc. This is possessive love. In idolatrous love
there was first of all projection of the Ego, and afterwards need of possession
of the projected Ego in a material or subtle possession of the idol. Here there
is first of all possession of the other (it happens by chance that this child is
my child, this country is my country). The affective situation which results
much resembles that of idolatrous love; however the joys are less conscious,
and one often sees the fear of losing the loved object predominate. Idolatrous
love gives what man calls a meaning to his life; possessive love also does
this, but it is often a meaning that is less positive, less satiating.

http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/Hubert-Benoit-The-Supreme-Doctrine.pdf

A nation of children ran away from their parents and other authority figures during the 60's looking for real spiritual nourishment, instead of allowing their parents to make them conform to the image THEY had in mind for them, and calling it 'love'. I have seen Christian parents instill guilt and shame in their children in the name of Jesus, turning them into indoctrinated zombies, and robbing them of their natural childhood.


What did Jesus stand for and die for? His ideas as a political activist and a mystic who professed his divinity. The Romans crucified him for sedition and treason on the one hand, and the Jewish high priests for blasphemy on the other. Fact of the matter is that Yeshu had no idea he was to be crucified.


Paul, not Jesus, was the founder of Christianity as a new religion which developed away from both normal Judaism and the Nazarene variety of Judaism. In this new religion, the Torah was abrogated as having had only temporary validity. The central myth of the new religion was that of an atoning death of a divine being. Belief in this sacrifice, and a mystical sharing of the death of the deity, formed the only path to salvation. Paul derived this religion from Hellenistic sources, chiefly by a fusion of concepts taken from Gnosticism and concepts taken from the mystery religions, particularly from that of Attis. The combination of these elements with features derived from Judaism, particularly the incorporation of the Jewish scriptures, reinterpreted to provide a background of sacred history for the new myth, was unique; and Paul alone was the creator of this amalgam. Jesus himself had no idea of it, and would have been amazed and shocked at the role assigned to him by Paul as a suffering deity. Nor did Paul have any predecessors among the Nazarenes though later mythography tried to assign this role to Stephen, and modern scholars have discovered equally mythical predecessors for Paul in a group called the 'Hellenists'. Paul, as the personal begetter of the Christian myth, has never been given sufficient credit for his originality. The reverence paid through the centuries to the great Saint Paul has quite obscured the more colourful features of his personality. Like many evangelical leaders, he was a compound of sincerity and charlatanry. Evangelical leaders of his kind were common at this time in the Greco-Roman world (e.g. Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana).

The Problem of Paul

Jesus isn't the problem. It's what people take from his teachings that cause offence. I'm fine, but I will defend those who believe in and who love Jesus. You can accuse, judge, and be offensive all you like, call their love for Jesus fake and what have you, but in the end you're no different than the Christians who judge you. I love Jesus, I love the Buddha, Martin Luther King Jr, Mother Theresa, Gandhi, and even people who judge me and others without cause. I may not have much reverence for people like you, but that's beside the point. I do have reverence for Jesus and the likes of Jesus. They are worthy of such reverence, but then you want everyone to be in the same company. They humbled themselves and became servants, so they were exalted. People like us, we are a dime a dozen. those I place on a pedestal deserve the props they're given by me.

 

[godnotgod]

Jesus isn't the problem. It's what people take from his teachings that cause offence. I'm fine, but I will defend those who believe in and who love Jesus. You can accuse, judge, and be offensive all you like, call their love for Jesus fake and what have you, but in the end you're no different than the Christians who judge you. I love Jesus, I love the Buddha, Martin Luther King Jr, Mother Theresa, Gandhi, and even people who judge me and others without cause. I may not have much reverence for people like you, but that's beside the point. I do have reverence for Jesus and the likes of Jesus. They are worthy of such reverence, but then you want everyone to be in the same company. They humbled themselves and became servants, so they were exalted. People like us, we are a dime a dozen. those I place on a pedestal deserve the props they're given by me.

'Jesus' IS the problem, because it is a fabrication that has been developed over a long period of time, especially by Paul. Having said that, I firmly believe there was an original personage whose name was Yeshu upon whom this fabrication was spun into the modern myth that has become 'Jesus'. There was no such 'Jesus' in the 1st century.


Yeshua (or Yahushua) bar Yosef (Yeshua, son of Joseph) is the original Aramaic name for Jesus the Nazarene. His parents, siblings, disciples, and followers called him by that name. The name "Jesus" is a misspelling and mispronunciation that resulted from the translation of Yeshua's name after his death, first into the Greek Iesous (pronounced "ee-ay-SUS"), and then from the Greek Iesous into the Latin Iesus. The Latin Iesus ("ee-ay-SUS") wasn't pronounced as "Jesus" with a "J" because the letter "j" didn't come into the English language until the middle of the seventeenth century. The King James Bible, written at the beginning of the seventeenth century, has the name Iesous ("ee-ay-sus"), with no "j." So even in English, no one spoke the name "Jesus" until sometime after the middle of the seventeenth century.

Yeshua before 30 CE

The other way of saying 'place on a pedestal' is simply 'projection of the ego', but you don't see that because your ego is in the way. Yes, YOU placed them on pedestals....YOU! You fail to understand the significance of the Ordinary and the Miraculous as being one and the same. What this tells me is that you have not yet had a transformative experience that allows you to see that. You are still in the sphere of belief and idolatrous love.

If you truly love Jesus and follow his teachings, and you are offended by what you perceive as insults, then you should forgive me instead of taking up arms and getting all huffy.

'Christians who judge me?' I thought Christians were instructed NOT to judge others. As for you, you have been making false judgments about me all through this thread, pointing the finger of accusation rather than trying to understand what is being pointed to.

The fatal error you continue to make is to discriminate between the 'worthy' and the 'unworthy', making your 'love' a personal thing, when it should be indiscriminate, like the supreme love of the Sun. Until you see beyond your own ego, you won't understand that, and will continue to become offended due to your emotional attachment to your idol. You seem not to understand Yeshu's dictum:

'Be thou wise as serpents and harmless as doves'

There must be a balance between the cool intellect and the passion of the heart. You seem absorbed by the passion of the heart and are quick to anger in defense and subsequently, offense. The Buddha fully understood this in developing his philosophy of the Middle Path, in which he realized that all dual views were extreme views.

BTW, there is no such 'Buddha' to love as an object, 'Buddha' being an inner experience rather than an external divine figure like 'Jesus'. In fact, Yeshu is also an inner experience rather than an external divine figure. This is the true meaning of 'I Am'.

I guess you're still looking for a role model, an ideal to emulate. But you need look no further than what is inside of you, and no, not your ego. You say you love the Buddha, but if you really did, you would understand what he said, and that is:

'Place no head above your own'

Shocked? Find out why.

 

[Thief]

'Jesus' IS the problem,

'Be thou wise as serpents and harmless as doves'

There must be a balance between the cool intellect and the passion of the heart. You seem absorbed by the passion of the heart and are quick to anger in defense and subsequently, offense. The Buddha fully understood this in developing his philosophy of the Middle Path, in which he realized that all dual views were extreme views.

This is the true meaning of 'I Am'.

I guess you're still looking for a role model, an ideal to emulate. But you need look no further than what is inside of you, and no, not your ego. You say you love the Buddha, but if you really did, you would understand what he said, and that is:

'Place no head above your own'

Shocked? Find out why.

It's shocking to see the clarity when I take some of your words out of your post.

Jesus is what many people call the Carpenter....deal with it.
And turning the other cheek is NOT as passive as many people think.
(It can be outright dangerous)

And when placing no one else above yourself......
Let's not go so far as to call heaven our equal.

 

[godnotgod]

.
Jesus is what many people call the Carpenter....deal with it.

There are no Carpenters called Jesus that I know of. You?

And turning the other cheek is NOT as passive as many people think.
(It can be outright dangerous)

And when placing no one else above yourself......
Let's not go so far as to call heaven our equal.

Didn't some Carpenter say that the kingdom of God is within you? Wouldn't that be 'heaven'? Or do you not want to deal with the Carpenter?

 

[steeltoes]

Deepak Chopra gets 5 out five eyerolls,

 

[Lyndale]

"What happens when you die"?

~you find out how far religions get you or how much Jesus loves you.

 

[Thief]

There are no Carpenters called Jesus that I know of. You?



Didn't some Carpenter say that the kingdom of God is within you? Wouldn't that be 'heaven'? Or do you not want to deal with the Carpenter?

Enter heaven and not see Him?

For now His word holds firm.
Heaven will be what we make it.
I've heard hell is what we make it.

Don't you keep saying you're not going?....either way?

 

[godnotgod]

Enter heaven and not see Him?]

The Carpenter did not say HE was inside you; he said the kingdom of God is within.

God is still an object to you. God cannot be encapsulated via object, form, definition, image, etc. It is the ESSENCE of the divine that is within, not a person. YOU are that essence. It is the 'I Am'.

For now His word holds firm.
Heaven will be what we make it.
I've heard hell is what we make it.

It's a troubled voyage in perfectly calm weather.

Don't you keep saying you're not going?....either way?

You can take the long way home, if you wish. I think I'll stay right here, at home.