The "Kingdom of Heaven" and the "Kingdom of God"

[Dennis Mahar]

Did religion rise up as a formula that was meant to settle the nerves about the not-knowing of death?
The not-knowing of death constituted 'anxiety'.

An anxiety needing fixing.

Definitely a marketing opportunity...demand gets the opportunity for supply.

The 'hope' in the not-knowing of death was that life show up after death.

The winning formula had to reflect that.

A formula that said 'once you're dead, you're dead' didn't cut it as a moneyspinner.

So, you had to get a soul happening that survived a body and travelled on.

Oh well, that's good, it's settled then, we live on...but, wait a minute, that's no good from a marketing angle, because anxiety is settled and there's no longer demand to supply.

Better get some anxiety going.

The question became of 'travelling to where'.

So we got heaven and hell and the necessary market requirement that involved anxiety about the where.

So the religion said 'follow me and bring your wallet'.

[jufa]

What is presented in the two statements above are purely literal and intellectual.

Yeah, you should try it some time. Your brain seems deteriorating rapidly. Anyway, it was not that intellectual, actually I hardly write intellectual stuff at this forum. I was actually talking about something very relevant for you, that is, the warning about regression instead of rebirth. I think something like that happened or is happening to you. Snap out of it man! Sticks and stones.

For only the child of promise is able to grasp no bounds, limits, conditions, levels, stages, degrees, or realms of hindrance exist anywhere in the worlds and universe of the human mind.

God the Father exists in all the bounds, laws, limits, condition, causes and degrees. Through all of this he has been known, worshiped and given shapes, forms and names over the ages. What you are doing is killing him. Little god-murderer!

Never seen God kill man, woman, child, animals, rain-forest, buffalo, drop two A-bombs on a race of people, put races in slavery, and all that good stuff man does, have you? Bet you cannot show me one definitive moment in time, space, distance, or matter where God has done any of these things man has done. Only thing you can do is say "if God. . .why does He/She/It allow this to happen?" Show me, tell me, give me a vision of how, when, why, where, who, and what God you are talking about. Man is the one who is doing all the above things, not God.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source pf strength - jufa

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Never seen God kill man, woman, child, animals, rain-forest, buffalo, drop two A-bombs on a race of people, put races in slavery .... Man is the one who is doing all the above things, not God.

This logic only works when you separate man, woman, child, A-bombs from God the Creator. But the moment you sever the relationship, you exclude God from the equation and thereby effectively killing God or an important, defining part of what it stands for. Then you continue to erect another god, a false or incomplete beyond which has hardly any linkage to reality whatsoever but does a nice job to hide the earlier murder behind, bury the corpse, erase the evidence.

Nothing personal Jules, it's just how I see the condition and conditioning I witness all around me. I just don't think you've broken the spell, actually you've just added more to it!

[jufa]

Never seen God kill man, woman, child, animals, rain-forest, buffalo, drop two A-bombs on a race of people, put races in slavery .... Man is the one who is doing all the above things, not God.

This logic only works when you separate man, woman, child, A-bombs from God the Creator. But the moment you sever the relationship, you exclude God from the equation and thereby effectively killing God or an important, defining part of what it stands for. Then you continue to erect another god, a false or incomplete beyond which has hardly any linkage to reality whatsoever but does a nice job to hide the earlier murder behind, bury the corpse, erase the evidence.

Nothing personal Jules, it's just how I see the condition and conditioning I witness all around me. I just don't think you've broken the spell, actually you've just added more to it!

Diebert, what you have failed to understand is the logic you speak about is man's logic. What is the logic for your saying my

logic exclude God from the equation and thereby effectively killing God or an important, defining part of what it stands for.sertion of separating God from man without applying logic of how ommnipresent can be separated from omnipresent?

This is a defeative attitude which make one believe principles can be suspended for the allowance of man's arrogance to believe patterns of certainty can whisked away because you say I

exclude God from the equation and thereby effectively killing God or an important, defining part of what it stands for.

when you do not know what god stands for because you have not and cannot define not only a God, but the God you speak of who suspend principles and patterns of life which change no where else in the universe, the world, the earth except in man's mind.

Who changed the truth of principles and patterns of creation? Define to me this

God or an important, defining part of what it stands for.

Define to me what makes God responsible for your responsibility to be compassionate, merciful, to do justly, to love yourself completely, pure, wholly, and perfectly so that you can eliminate the thought patterns of such thinking from your life, and thus, from your world, your universe, and your being of illogic when there is no logic for your being to begin with. Define to me what reality is beyond relativity of assumption, opinions, and what you see compared to what I see. I can move in your world of thinking, but your thinking, whether you want to or not, stops you from opening the door to my world. If you are not open to my real reality, you have failed to expand to reality.

Never give power to anything a perdson believes is their source of strength -jufa

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert, what you have failed to understand is the logic you speak about is man's logic.

And what you fail to understand is that you're suggesting a logic beyond logic. But at that moment it ceases to be logic. If you'd talk about faith, or "mystery" it would at least be consistent. Man, after all a self-defining creature, cannot reach beyond his own confines without losing definition, and as such existence.

when you do not know what god stands for because you have not and cannot define not only a God, but the God you speak of who suspend principles and patterns of life which change no where else in the universe, the world, the earth except in man's mind.

Your sentence structure is not coherent which makes me wonder how clear your mind is on this topic. But from what I gather I see you're invoking an unnecessary abyss between what happens in my mind and what might happen in the rest of the universe. While I perceive a distinction, there's not really an absolute barrier there, except as you say: "in man's mind".

if you are not open to my real reality, you have failed to expand to reality.

Try to follow some language course first! I cannot be the first one to tell you how hard it is to follow even your most simple statements. Perhaps you should try to put a bit more time in writing posts, access more quiet time in your mind during writing or else get some help to increase the effectiveness of your writing - and writing is an exponent of thinking, unless you're still learning the language.

[Kelly Jones]

Thanks Diebert. I also find Jufa's expression hard to follow.


.

[jufa]

Diebert states: Try to follow some language course first! I cannot be the first one to tell you how hard it is to follow even your most simple statements. Perhaps you should try to put a bit more time in writing posts, access more quiet time in your mind during writing or else get some help to increase the effectiveness of your writing - and writing is an exponent of thinking, unless you're still learning the language.

There you go again, attempting to deny the principle of expansion while you strain, and follow dog-it-ly the words which makes you expand in comprehension so you may reply, and become open even the more. Hallelujah! hallelujah! Hallelujah! Thank you Jesus, thank you! - Just kidding now, just kidding

Your sentence structure is not coherent which makes me wonder how clear your mind is on this topic. But from what I gather I see you're invoking an unnecessary abyss between what happens in my mind and what might happen in the rest of the universe. While I perceive a distinction, there's not really an absolute barrier there, except as you say: "in man's mind".

It is structured enough for it to be coherent to you. Whose elses mind what you perceive and distinquish mind can it be in? That's yours. That

unnessary abyss

is yours, and yours alone. You formed and place it into the universe. It has no other home but you, and you are your mind of awareness, no one else is.

And what you fail to understand is that you're suggesting a logic beyond logic. But at that moment it ceases to be logic. If you'd talk about faith, or "mystery" it would at least be consistent. Man, after all a self-defining creature, cannot reach beyond his own confines without losing definition, and as such existence.

You find no suggestions in my words. You find a telling of my journey. It is the nearness of touching you right now, and it is taking you into a vision where you either see your light, or you don't. You need not understand or attempt to disavow its reality, just enjoy riding upon the winds of my inevitability. You aint heavy, you're my brother.

Never give power to anything q person believes is heir source of strength

[jufa]

Thanks Diebert. I also find Jufa's expression hard to follow.


.

Kelly, it is apparent you and Diebert did not comprehend the principle of expansion is what was invoked when the both of you were learning the mentality you display now. That principle I state to you will expand "By whatever means necessary." Understanding me may be hard to follow, but the both of you follow "By whatever mens necessary."

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Kelly Jones]

No, you definitely have language issues, jufa.

Check out a simpler version of your post:

Kelly, neither you and Diebert comprehend that your mentality invokes the principle of expansion, which is "By whatever means necessary." The reason you misunderstand me, is because I don't have the same mentality.

Try to simplify.


.

[Dennis Mahar]

Define to me what makes God responsible for your responsibility to be compassionate, merciful, to do justly, to love yourself completely, pure, wholly, and perfectly so that you can eliminate the thought patterns of such thinking from your life, and thus, from your world, your universe, and your being of illogic when there is no logic for your being to begin with. Define to me what reality is beyond relativity of assumption, opinions, and what you see compared to what I see. I can move in your world of thinking, but your thinking, whether you want to or not, stops you from opening the door to my world. If you are not open to my real reality, you have failed to expand to reality.

You seem to be trying to get God off the hook for Man's 'falling' Jufa.

It looks like a blame game.

[jufa]

No, you definitely have language issues, jufa.

Check out a simpler version of your post:

Kelly, neither you and Diebert comprehend that your mentality invokes the principle of expansion, which is "By whatever means necessary." The reason you misunderstand me, is because I don't have the same mentality.

Try to simplify.


.

That is not a simpler version of my post. You have presented what you think I was saying in the word structure of my words you find hard to follow. I said what I said, and only I know what I was saying. This is why it is of necessity for one to establish their own platform. No one such as the likes of jufa can then knock you off what is yours when you have acknowledged that which you know of jufa is who you are, as this forum is who you are. Every thing you are aware of is who you are. Why do you feel forced to define your manness, and not your womanness? Who besides you have the right to define the reality of man, or woman, or the smell of shit? Shit is shit no matter the shap, size, smell, it came from.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their ssource of strength jufa

[jufa]

Define to me what makes God responsible for your responsibility to be compassionate, merciful, to do justly, to love yourself completely, pure, wholly, and perfectly so that you can eliminate the thought patterns of such thinking from your life, and thus, from your world, your universe, and your being of illogic when there is no logic for your being to begin with. Define to me what reality is beyond relativity of assumption, opinions, and what you see compared to what I see. I can move in your world of thinking, but your thinking, whether you want to or not, stops you from opening the door to my world. If you are not open to my real reality, you have failed to expand to reality.

You seem to be trying to get God off the hook for Man's 'falling' Jufa.

It looks like a blame game.

Dennis, tell me who of authority told you God is on a hook. God has not broke any intent, purpose, principle, or pattern of His/Her's/It's obedience to what IT represent of It's Self only. God is not responsible to that, or those whose who do not know all one is aware of is the hook they hang from. Your beliefs are that which define the hook of Dennis, To the universal Spirit of Life, you are the whole, perfect, pure, and complete Life of Life. "Awake thou that sleepest arise from the dead, and
christ will give you Life,"

Never give power to anything a persn believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Dennis Mahar]

I stand in nothing Jufa.
that is,
I'm present to conceptualising mind's nefarious ways, particularly it's inclination to attach to ideas and have them concretised as beliefs.
Once a belief is formed and attached to, inquiry stops dead, reasoning is abandoned and the progression then is 'quarrelling for the merit of one's brand of soap'.

When I see conceptualising mind at work, I see both the contents that flow out of it in the form of words, sentences...
and the unspoken, background context that gets the flow happening...

We're driven to understand and explain in language, which means an unspoken context is formed that grabs at scripture (past writings) to somehow miraculously verify the veracity of the context but doesn't.

You will say that 'standing in nothing' is in and of itself a belief system.

I say it's a rational stand to stand in, because inquiry hasn't stopped and soap isn't being sold.

It's not looking at contents so much as contexts.
It's inquiry into conceptualising mind itself.
Failure to grok mind has one the victim of it.

It really does look as though you run out of a context Jufa:

'It's a crime scene and Man's the villian' as an understanding and explanation in Language of life.
You seem to be saying it's not God's fault, that it's Man's arrogance that has betrayed God and in that, God gets off the hook as a culprit in any way, shape or form.

you've split God and man apart as good/bad somehow in your story or at least the way you tell it given the limitations of languaging,
and yet you sometimes talk about non-duality.
and there's no duality in non-duality, so how come you've split things up?
It's not clear yet Jufa, whatever you're up to.
keep it up, good to meet with you.

[jufa]

Dennis stated: I stand in nothing Jufa.
that is, I'm present to conceptualising mind's nefarious ways

This is not true, you stand in every good and evil concept of the "I" you claim as Dennis.

I'm present to conceptualising mind's nefarious ways, particularly it's inclination to attach to ideas and have them concretised as beliefs.

This is also not true in the sense the only mind and concept you are aware of are the ones attached to you. If you were not aware of them, you could not be

present to conceptualising mind's nefarious ways

Once a belief is formed and attached to, inquiry stops dead, reasoning is abandoned and the progression then is 'quarrelling for the merit of one's brand of soap'.

This also is a false concept you have formed and attached yourself to. All you have to do is watch a baby become aware of things and how inquiry fills it with with the drive of inquiry, and it begins to reason and manipulate. this activity never ceases or is abandoned. What you are talking about in the end herein, is your own selfishess of choice you push force. And besides repetition demands progress.

When I see conceptualising mind at work, I see both the contents that flow out of it in the form of words, sentences...
and the unspoken, background context that gets the flow happening...

You cannot see the invisible. What you see are the words, pictures, thoughts of your learning and adapation of your thinking, and how you activate your mind for application to your daily situations, circumstances, and conditioning.

We're driven to understand and explain in language, which means an unspoken context is formed that grabs at scripture (past writings) to somehow miraculously verify the veracity of the context but doesn't.

Sure we are driven, and it is that Spirit of inquiry and reasoning to know and expand you say stops and is abandond. You are contradicting yourself.

You will say that 'standing in nothing' is in and of itself a belief system.
I say it's a rational stand to stand in, because inquiry hasn't stopped and soap isn't being sold.
It's not looking at contents so much as contexts.

You do not know what I would say. I say nothing. Your rational stand of your contradictions of inquiry stopping, and now your saying inquiry doesn't stop is your selling of the soap dualism. It sells, there is no stopping of its selling.

It's not looking at contents so much as contexts.
It's inquiry into conceptualising mind itself.
Failure to grok mind has one the victim of it.

Non-sense, the context is entwined in the contents, and vice verse, and because one does not agree with going along with "they say" does not make them a victim.

It really does look as though you run out of a context Jufa:

Not true as long as I hold your attention.

'It's a crime scene and Man's the villian' as an understanding and explanation in Language of life.
You seem to be saying it's not God's fault, that it's Man's arrogance that has betrayed God and in that, God gets off the hook as a culprit in any way, shape or form.

The crime is man believing what he plants in the garden of Eden of his mind will not grow after its kind. God did not plant those seeds, and God will not harvest them, man will. This is the binding principle of "whatsoever ye sow, that shall ye reap." That all on you, not God.

you've split God and man apart as good/bad somehow in your story or at least the way you tell it given the limitations of languaging,
and yet you sometimes talk about non-duality.
and there's no duality in non-duality, so how come you've split things up?
It's not clear yet Jufa, whatever you're up to.
keep it up, good to meet with you.

How can one split that which is unknown to him? I see no split in the universe anywhere. The split you are talking about is your acceptance of the concept of your conceptualizing on what a God you have mistified should and should not do. And your lack of understanding what I'm up to, just doesn't gel. My words and language is not so limited as you would have one believe. They make your mind stand at attension in the good, bad, dual and non-dual context of their content.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Dennis Mahar]

A stand in nothing isn't nothing, it's something. A stand. A way of dealing with it.
The context and content appear as one.
Standing in nothing deals with the memes happening right now, that come out of minds.

What is mind?
It looks like mind is somewhat of a protection racket that stands guard for your Being. To protect Being it cannot be Being. It's an appropriation your Being has to get around in the World for protection.
To protect Being, mind cannot be your Being wholly.
Oneness isn't useful to mind. A guard needs to keep it's eye on it's charge, to do that it has to separate from it's charge. Thus duality and separation are born and entrenched.

It's this activity a stand in nothing appreciates.

Mind appears to be looking for safe havens for the sake of Being.

Worldhood looks like it's brainwashing the kiddies into it's safe havens or societies
Religion looks like it's brainwashing it's kiddies into it's ontological safe havens.
Science looks like it's trying to set up a safe haven.

Being gets forgotten.

[Kelly Jones]

No, you definitely have language issues, jufa.

Check out a simpler version of your post:

Kelly, neither you and Diebert comprehend that your mentality invokes the principle of expansion, which is "By whatever means necessary." The reason you misunderstand me, is because I don't have the same mentality.

Try to simplify.

That is not a simpler version of my post. You have presented what you think I was saying in the word structure of my words you find hard to follow. I said what I said, and only I know what I was saying.

Jufa, it makes no sense at all to post to this public philosophy forum, but not try to communicate clearly. You tend to lose track of your original point, and confuse it with irrelevant tangents. Please try to write more simply.

Just make your point, and stop there.


.

[Pam Seeback]

Either your God:

Is conditioned as you are conditioned;

OR

Is unconditioned.

The question I would like answered by those on this board who believe their God is conditioned as they are conditioned is: how will you ever be whole and complete to yourself if your God is conditioned to doubt as you are conditioned to doubt? If indeed, being whole and complete to yourself is what you desire of yourself.

[cousinbasil]

Jufa, it makes no sense at all to post to this public philosophy forum, but not try to communicate clearly. You tend to lose track of your original point, and confuse it with irrelevant tangents. Please try to write more simply.

Sense, Kelly? Has jufa made sense in any of his posts? I don't intend to be cruel, but jufa probably has an IQ of around 80, and yours is likely above 120. Can't you see that? I know IQ doesn't measure one's "geniusness." But it does assess how well one has absorbed the education to which one has been exposed, more or less. It is impossible for me to follow very much of what he writes because he doesn't know the meaning of many of the words he is using. He just likes the way they sound in his head when he types them. What he has to say may very well be profound to him, but spending time commenting on it is largely senseless, don't you think?

[Dennis Mahar]

The question I would like answered by those on this board who believe their God is conditioned as they are conditioned is: how will you ever be whole and complete to yourself if your God is conditioned to doubt as you are conditioned to doubt? If indeed, being whole and complete to yourself is what you desire of yourself.

How do you go about it please?
practically.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Whose elses mind what you perceive and distinquish mind can it be in?

Perhaps you should ask Pamela to edit your posts, like she did your book? It would really benefit the message, don't you think?

That unnessary abyss is yours, and yours alone. You formed and place it into the universe. It has no other home but you, and you are your mind of awareness, no one else is.

Well, not me but you brought it up, this divide, with the statement: "man is the one who is doing all the above things, not God". You divide the man and his things, the good and the bad things, and then even somehow detach God from that all. And then you claim I an cutting up things! The only things I'm cutting up are your dreams and make-beliefs.

You find no suggestions in my words. You find a telling of my journey. It is the nearness of touching you right now, and it is taking you into a vision

Yeah, mesmerism, that's all it adds up to, really. The world is full of forms of light hypnosis and lullabies - and you're just adding another unimpressive, largely incomprehensible tune! But some, or at least Pam, must be taken by it: so well done Sir!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The question I would like answered by those on this board who believe their God is conditioned as they are conditioned is: how will you ever be whole and complete to yourself if your God is conditioned to doubt as you are conditioned to doubt? If indeed, being whole and complete to yourself is what you desire of yourself.

It's important to understand the self is naturally, necessarily and unavoidably incomplete and lacking. This is what creates the image of self in the first place. So being complete and whole to yourself will only appear to happen under the influence of a powerful drug of belief, which will just hide many of the more obvious indicators of lack and incompletion. This is called the art of self-deception.

The only truthful road forward, at some point, might be for someone to quiten that very desire and takes in the self as is, in its ultimate non-existence.

[Pam Seeback]

The question I would like answered by those on this board who believe their God is conditioned as they are conditioned is: how will you ever be whole and complete to yourself if your God is conditioned to doubt as you are conditioned to doubt? If indeed, being whole and complete to yourself is what you desire of yourself.

It's important to understand the self is naturally, necessarily and unavoidably incomplete and lacking. This is what creates the image of self in the first place. So being complete and whole to yourself will only appear to happen under the influence of a powerful drug of belief, which will just hide many of the more obvious indicators of lack and incompletion. This is called the art of self-deception.

The only truthful road forward, at some point, might be for someone to quiten that very desire and takes in the self as is, in its ultimate non-existence.

Diebert, I have never said that I am fully conscious of my wholeness and completeness. I agree that to believe this is the ultimate deception.

Where we disagree is in the 'truthful road forward' from this point of realization of what is different about one's infinity and one's finiteness. Your position seems to be, oh well, might as well accept that I am but am image of myself, and not the reality of myself. My position is that once one discovers that they have been living as an image and not as the wholeness of themselves, that it is their responsibility to stand on this spot of wholeness realization and to begin to dissolve their image reflection.

What does this mean? To live a life as close to one's wholeness realization as is possible. To be faithful to eliminating within oneself, all biases and prejudices one has toward form. To be as silent of gossip, innuendo and opinion as is possible. To cease putting out into the world, statements about another being as if one knows that being and has the right to judge who and what is the nature of their conscience. In other words, to silence the human mind of idle dreaming, speculation and supposition.

I read somewhere that the purest attitude of man is that of "suckling on the light of the infinite." This pretty much ecapsulates how I strive to live my life every day. My image continues to be reflected, but it is becoming more and more transparent as I "suckle" on God's unconditioned light.

[Pam Seeback]

The question I would like answered by those on this board who believe their God is conditioned as they are conditioned is: how will you ever be whole and complete to yourself if your God is conditioned to doubt as you are conditioned to doubt? If indeed, being whole and complete to yourself is what you desire of yourself.

How do you go about it please?
practically.

I hope my answer to Diebert also answers your question.

I will add that to stand on that spot of wholeness realization allows me to go into the world and be minimally affected [sometimes not at all, which is my goal] by the multitude of walking and talking self images I encounter every day as I go about my business.

[Pam Seeback]

Yeah, mesmerism, that's all it adds up to, really. The world is full of forms of light hypnosis and lullabies - and you're just adding another unimpressive, largely incomprehensible tune! But some, or at least Pam, must be taken by it: so well done Sir!

This is an example of gossip, innuendo and opinion that I strive not to put out into the world. You believe you know what I am about, but you know no such thing. Many on this forum exhibit this projection of their self image outward as if it is truth or a truth. This is the way of ego death? I think not.

All you have is your self image of "Pam" and of what value is that to anyone but you? And being that it is of no value to anyone but you, why not keep it to yourself? Were you standing in the gap between your infinity and your finiteness, you could have allowed the self righteous finiteness of this belief to be absorbed back from whence it came, into your infinity. You would have been the activity of consciousness that is "God, in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself."

All I see from the above statement, and statements such as cousinbasil's about his belief about another persons' I.Q. is the attempt to bolster one's self image by putting down or destroying his perception of another's self image. For the weak minded, such projections are taken as being fact or at least partially-true, and it does not take a rocket scientist to see where such gossip-mongering leads. Where is the enlightenment in such behavior? I see none.

[cousinbasil]

All I see from the above statement, and statements such as cousinbasil's about his belief about another persons' I.Q. is the attempt to bolster one's self image by putting down or destroying his perception of another's self image.

My IQ assessment of jufa is of course a guess, but a good over/under just the same. And Pam, clearly yours is substantially higher than that, although that might be difficult to substantiate with this quote. This statement of yours claims that I am trying to destroy my perception of jufa's self-image. Think about that for a second. Why would I want to do that? I think you meant to say "...by putting down or destroying what he perceives to be [jufa's] self image."

Usually, Pam, your ideas are conveyed less ambiguously than this. It took only a little effort to ascertain your meaning. With jufa, it seems no amount of effort shakes the meaning out. One ends up with the uncomfortable feeling one is reading a meaning into it. Who exactly benefits from that?

You seem to think I am somehow trying to bolster my own self image by doing whatever it is you claim I am doing. If you think my image of myself needs bolstering - by me or by anyone else - you would be, I assure you, in the minority.