just a thought without judging anyone. It is a question that I have asked myself much of my life. I have my personal answer for this question I had posed to myself, but why the very question existed in my mind was also peculiar at the time.

At what point in a person's life is self righteousness not a filter of its own making?

Abra,



Thank you Abra, for comprehending what I am saying. To be your own authority is to accept responsibility for everything that arises in your life. Accepting what is and dealing with it in the best way you know how using all your instincts and incite, and putting your faith in your connection to that higher self is all we need to do. Have faith that things are as they should be. Have faith in yourself, and your higher self that is the true you. Ultimately you are the one who decides, you are the last authority in that. You are the higher self.

Everyone’s claim to righteousness is of it’s own making.

Religious people merely attempt to disguise their self righteousness in terms an ultimate authority.

All that does is serve to make them become judgmental of others who disagree with their idea of ‘righteousness’.

At least people who are willing to take full responsibility for their own self righteousness aren’t likely to judge others for not conforming to their ideals.

Recognizing that everyone is self righteous including religious people is paramount.

It's called, "Taking responsibility for your own ideals"

And letting other's be responsible for theirs.

I simply marvel at this... wonderful, insightful, and quite real.

We all express that which lives within us... someway... somehow... the agreements within us determine our 'vision' and our expression(s) of it's existance. This 'vision' is learned throughout our life. Continuously re-adusting, or not, to that which creates an imbalance in the confidence of our understanding, which either fortifies our own agreements, or begins to displace them.

Adjusting to accept an ideology that does not initially feel right, is indeed completely possible. Although at first it is troublesome, there could come a point in time at which it truly becomes ingrained deeply enough to be of second nature.

This also holds true of that which does feel right, initially. would that, then also be of second nature... or first?

If one adopts an uncomfortable idealogy as a result of the need to feel accepted by those with such, then where would that leave the uncomfortable one? Where does that leave the truth of how one feels, and why?

The long-ignored truth of how one feels is then hidden underneath layers of adopted ideals and beliefs which will be later fortified by the gained sight, and further justified by what is seen(recognized) as choice, as a result of having such sight. The truth of who one is becomes lost in what one needs to be, which is so different from who they really are...

Do we not all wonder, then when and how to shed this worldly fingerprint that steals us from who we really are?

Do we all have the ability to recognize that which we have accepted within, against our will, that has become it?

How well do we know ourselves?

Why?

well, I most certainly agree that "taking responsibility for your own ideals" is a perfect example of self righteousness, which goes to my point. It is the supreme filter that 'disguises' as you say, the ultimate authority over one's own life.

The imagination is a wonderful thing and can conceive of even the most noble of fictions.

Walking into the unknown and seizing risks produce reward and failures that merit examination. Self examination to some extent is only a concession to compromise, however.

These same "self righteous" filters may be ones' own undoing.

Thus justifying the inevitable conclusion that sufficient will is not present to remain selfless and objective and open to the possibilities that not all of life's challenges are rewarded fruitfully when filters 'in place' limit one's opportunities to connect with an influence greater than self that resists the personal success of endeavor sought.

There is no quid pro quo that will establish the proof of mutual exclusivity of self and any higher self. The self is still imposed on by selfwill and its own protective justifications. It remains the filter through which no criticism or evaluation posited by any external influence can pierce. Perhaps the prevention of the piercing of one's self is not the cure.

Perhaps the prevention is a sympton of fears retained and apprehensions that are unstable.

I say this because deconstructing one's sellf may very well destroy the justifications of the imposed filters of self, in general.

What appears to be the consensus about self determination and self awareness is found in how such deifies rationalizations that further sequesters objectivity.

The collective accountability for social responsibility then becomes a morality in and of itself.

The value judgement itself, in this regards, requires law to isolate the offenders of personal boundaries.

In that, man is become his own judge.

Asuming that is the hope, then no God is needed, required, nor hoped for as judge over the actions and intents of man.

Clearly then, there is no god for such an elightenment, albeit quite subjective to the imposition of the souvereignty of man over his own destiny, purpose and presence.

In that case, no god can penetrate that which is forsaken.

Also, were there to be a god over the souvereignty of man and distinctions made apparent superceding selfwilled determination, then self will would be redundant.

In conclusion, where no god exists, there is no hope of being where god is. If there is no god, then only the imaginations of men fabricate abdication of accountability for actions taken and the intents that motivate those same actions.


And yet, the struggle continues in wrestling with laws at all.

That is vanity. Vanity displays vain and unnecessary subjectivity which is a filter all its own. No objectivity, therefore, no accountability.

Were that true and just, and readily apparent to all today, it should have well been the case mellinia ago and this notion of gods never having a need to be entertained would have been nothing more than a collective delusion. Who would ever entertain such a fiction? How would such delusions even genesis?

Considering then that man hasn't changed since his presence has been noted in the earth, judging by the propensity that man exhibits to continue in his folly and repeat the same mistakes over and over again as though history does not exist to teach sufficient warning of being socially inept and inadequate without due cause and consequence, I cannot conclude but that the notion of god is not delusional but that the notion that man is delusional for rejecting god.

To put it another way, the strong survive and the weak perish.

The weak seek for help from oppression and tyranny and invent god.

The weak become strong and vanquish the strong which become weak, only because of the imagination of the weak that are made stronger for their fabrication of god.

That is the definition of ludicrous, my friends.

I am neither ludicrous nor weak. I embrace risk and the unknown.

Were it not for gravity and its inescapable grip on me, I would venture to say that I am from a different planet to embrace such logic as that which suggests that self righteousness is the pinnacle of human awareness with regards to his laughably "self imposed" environment in his godlessness, or self righteous godliness, in either case.


peace.

Absolutely, and unfortunately this is the way things are in the real world.

Let’s say that it’s your true nature to like to be as natural as possible. And the truth of who you are is that you like to ride your horse bareback completely naked. That’s what feels perfectly natural to you.

Well, if you join a local riding club and you show up looking like Lady Godiva you’ll most likely be arrested for violating the law of the land (indecent exposure).

The fact of the matter is that we can’t always be who we want to be. The real world society won’t permit it.

I tried to live a back-to-basics lifestyle myself in the past. Living that lifestyle in society that is economy-based made life quite difficult for me. In short, I couldn’t barter with my neighbors because they weren’t interested in a barter system. They wanted cold hard cash. And they were charging prices that reflect our modern industrialized world. Not prices that are compatible with a simply back-to-basics lifestyle.

In short Michael, it’s impossible for me to be who I am whilst living the USA in the 21st century. I have no choice but to become something I’m not naturally comfortable with. I have no choice but to conform to the world around me, at least in matters of practicality.

When in Rome do as the Roman’s do. <------ If you want to survive!

We must forfeit the perfection of who we are, in favor of living in the reality of the Rome that surrounds us.

But there are lines that we can draw. For example, we don’t need to become Roman Catholics. We can become Roman Pantheists or Roman Atheists.

We have some choices. And perhaps the point you are trying to make is that we should make as many personal choices as we possibly can whilst not appearing to be too non-Roman.

On that point I would agree with you wholeheartedly.



Knowing ourselves and having the freedom to act on that knowledge are two different things.

Life is a journey for that one purpose. To be. To meet yourself. To create and re-create ourselves in any direction we choose over the many incarnations and the many lives we spend here. You cannot know your self in one lifetime. You have to live in the world of darkness and light, good and bad for many incarnations in order to know your preferences and to learn what you do not want and then turn away from that. Face only what you want. See only what you desire, create something worthy. Above all, learn to love. When you know yourself then you will know all others. When you love yourself, then you will love all others.

I believe that self righteousness dissolves when a person is in a state of sincere gratitude for all that God (or the conscious universe)provides or has provided. To be unceasingly grateful for all that comes to you, all that is given, all that is, will open the communication between the little self the Prime Source of all creation. (God)

Interesting it was, for myself, to be able to effectively communicate with those who I was not. To this day, I can completely relate to people such as the ones that I had been taught to be like, simply by being raised in such an environment...

I gravitated towards that which I had been taught. I gravitated towards that which I did not truly like, nor was I truly like...

Thankfully, I knew better, as a result of having some profound examples to the contrary. Examples which I completely felt at ease with had allowed an understanding to be at the least... seeded. Examples which were proof of the opposite of what I had been shown, were later remembered, although they had been long forgotten as a result of the blurred vision I had adopted as truth...

Examples which had saved my life, before I had a chance to begin it, for myself...

Funny it is, at times, when a long-forgotten memory has came back into conscious thought, viewed once again, only this time with a much clearer understanding of what had been shown...

And I smile within...

these very words come from the imagination of a souveriegn person or from an external spiritual influence. Not both, but rather, one or the other.

I will assume then that they are not from within the inmagination of a souvereign person, because they are not universally accepted.

Then they must be from an external spiritual influence. and one that I do not communicate with. This is not universally accepted either.

Must it be imagined, or actually defy the notion of proving gods?

More questions than answers are given in the statements made, and unqualified as either.

So, you nullify your previous statement that the higher self is of a souvereign person, the individual.
Now you suppose it to be a god of external influence upon the souvereignty of the person, the individual.

I hav a different spiritual external influence which you choose to refute with disengenuous statements that are neither defensible nor warranted, unless of course the goal was to deceive the uninitiated.

I still hold that it is a subjective influence that justifies the existence of yet another which you are unfamiliar with and recalcitrantly refusing to willfully acknowledge as being present in the discourse of humanity.

This is most interesting.

Clearly, there are more influences than you can recognize and dismiss.

Yours has failed to expose mine.

Yet, your statements would refute the existence of any to remove faith in my statements made without the subjectivity of your choosing, but rather in the vain attempt at discrediting mine.

Clearly, one of these mutually exclusive spiritual influences is a lie.

A mere imagination.

The higher self is the true self ~ that is me. It is not the highest God, and I have never claimed it to be, but is connected to another higher self which is connected to still another and another until all these connections are all connected to the one being that is God..

My gratitude is to those individuals within my higher self who, in their wisdom, guide my life until such time I can join them as one. We are one being with many faucets. We have been separated in order to live many lives on the earth. We will be joined together again when we are finished with the earth. All gratitude goes to them and through them to the others and to God.






I have no desire to expose or discredit anything of yours. I do disagree with most of your conclusions however, but that is of no importance, really.




You seem to continue to be influenced by the idea that I claim inheritance of a Godhead at some point. I simply believe that we are co-creators of the universe of God, and we are individuals as long as we desire to be.

I do not desire to be, nor could I ever be God in It's entirety, or even "One with the Godhead" for eternity as some people imagine. I am a co-creator within the body, and a very very tiny particle in that great body, grateful for life and all that I am given and all that I am.

At this juncture, I have deduced that we are not alone, nor souvereign by the discourse that has followed sharing how subjective self will and its limitations are and not the prerequisite for being objective and reasonable in choices offered throughout a lifetime.

There are other inspirations that have purpose and textiure to them, beyond being mere imaginations.

That filters exist, external influences exist.

There are those that would be gods and there is God.

Clearly this has become the field of declaring gods and not of acknowledging delusional imaginations.

All gods are not.

One God is all. He is the Living Word that is asking for room in the heart to dwell and believe in eternal life.

The others are mere distractions.

Unless , of course , anarchy and chaos are being displayed as hope for a brighter tomorrow as though today were not sufficient unto itself to provide the longing in the heart with truth and love for its answer.

Proof is in the divergence of the inspiration.

Jesus sends the spurious word out of the mind as the truthful Word enters the heart.

How can it be that a mere man may call these things out to display their defiant pride and arrogance to rebuke just a man
and haughtily declare the status of gods over the judgement of man?

What gods would answer a man that speaks only of his observations without calling on gods to answer back?

Filters and their subjectivity are at the least being questioned, and at the worst, gods are being called into argue for the individual that seeks only to discredit genuine observations made by another not sharing a similar distinction elsewhere in these threads.

Is the topic at hand in dispute, or the man that would offer reasonable judgement that questions man's capacity to be alone in his judgements?

It is clear to many in JSH that this man holds that Jesus Christ is the only Living Word of God and that all others are mirages, yet here we see that others would attempt to confuse the reader with amibguity and suppose that either man or his consciousness prevails to establish righteousness.

The OP aside, I find proof evident that spiritual forces are at work, at least to mask that there is one true God, known to me, and known to all, including me, are other gods that are not after all.

Let's face it. Many here say they are connected to god outside of Christ, and Christ Jesus says the god of this world is not God. But that his Father is God and no man comes to God but by Him and through Him only.

Someone is lying.

But in the end, there are spiritual influences agreed to being exerted on man at all.

Why the games?

Are not your terms met on your own terms with God?

Why should they be?

God is God, and not man to whom God need not answer to.

The accountability for personal responsibility is from man to God for man's actions and that on God's terms, not man's.

Yet the dance is being danced.

Somebody has to pay the fiddler.

Just reading this indicates to me a failure to understand the pantheistic view. You seem to only think in terms of completely separate egotistical beings,… or,… in terms of a completely separate egotistical Godhead.

Pantheism is neither of these. It’s more of an idea of an inseparable symbiosis. The sovereign person is always a manifestation of the Holy Spirit (if you like). Individual only in the manifestation. But not individual in spirit.

In other words, the same Holy Spirit that manifests your existence is the same Holy Spirit that manifests mine. We are all manifestations of the same Holy Spirit.

All you are trying to do Wouldee is give justification to the men who wrote the Bible as having spoken for all of us. Those are the people who played God. Those are the men who blasphemed themselves IMHO.

Just because they claimed that they speak for all of us doesn’t make it so.

That’s my perspective on that Wouldee.

WE ‘collectively’ are the spirit of this universe. As well as all life forms within it.

Your sovereign choice is to allow ancient men to do your thinking for you.

My sovereign choice is to ‘feel’ my connection to spirit of the universe directly and ignore ancient supersitious men.

We all make choices Wouldee.

If you are happy with your choice, that’s cool.

Just know that we are also happy with our relationship with how we view our creator. I personally don't feel like worshiping superstitious ideas of ancient men who knew less about life than we do.

In my opinion their ideas were clearly bigoted, prejudiced, and based on ignorance. I don’t believe for one second that their writings were divinely inspired as a message to all mankind. They spoke in terms of their current situations, and nothing more.

Just look above your latest post, Abra, and you will find my conclusion with deductive reasoning fromcertain statements offered herein.

My word stands.

The Word of God stands alone.

The words of man are the letter.

The Spirit of God is truth.

life is a trial.

Find what you will on your own terms, but don't suppose that man's historic answers of the existence of God replaces God or defines God or even is a substitute for God.

None of the excuses you afford my person are substantiated by any word of mmine in any thread in this or any other forum.

At no time are you at liberty to assume that I am not known to God, or know God.

You can only assume your distaste for that which refuses to answer you on your own terms.

God is not like you Abra. He does not require your approval to meet you in your righteousness as you see fit to assume is pertinent to God.

Nor do you discredit God because God does not necessarily acceed to your particular demands for fellowship and relationship with God.

You only acnowledge the mere observation of God's creation and have no direct knowledge from God to discredit anything about what God chooses to acknowledge from man.

But your incessant preaching about your particular disdain for God is well known to God, and those that know God.

I will even go so far as to say that the bitterness in your heart makes your entire discousre throughpout unappealing to the vast majority by virtue of your obvious contempt of God, exclusive of the nature you attribute to God.

You are a talented man, and an very imaginative and creative poet, my friend.

You are not, however the only validity in the universe.

That Christians admonish your contempt is sufficient for reflection. But no reflection and easing of your contempt ensues.

God , in fact, is the only validity in the universe and I certainly know God and it is not your God. I knew your God many years ago. That is not God.

Such insistence on your part to dominate the threads with your discourse as though you are doing humanity service is, quit frankly, annoying and very tiresome.

The Earth itself is a game. God plays the game of dividing itself into many others who are given the awareness of perception and are given individual status to create in all directions and in other dimensions you cannot imagine.

The universe is unimaginably immense, consisting not only of our stars and our planets and our galaxies, but of others that cannot be seen or imagined.

If someone lies it is the gods who lie. God lies and lets us believe that we are separate in order that we will create in all directions and all dimensions and expand the thing we call existence.... universes .... life.

The knowing comes to those who reach out and want to know and to those who commence to learn to love and to create. Many of these gods wish to be worshiped. Many claim that they are the supreme God of all. Believe them if you wish. It is these gods who lie.

JB

We don’t know whether Jesus ever said that or not Wouldee. All we have on that is hearsay.

Personally I think the man was misunderstood and the gospels concerning his teachings him are most likely tainted by the authors of the gospels and may very well contain vast amounts of demagoguery.

If you want to believe that it’s authentic more power to you. But why suggest that others are wrong for not making that choice?

Clearly if they don’t believe that Christ was God they can’t reject him. That would not be possible. In order to reject him as a God you must first believe that he was God.

I’m sure than an all-knowing, all-wise, creator of this universe would fully understand that an totally have compassion for those who didn’t believe the story even if it was true. No genuinely intelligent God would blame anyone for not believing in something claimed by men. And even Jesus was a man. So God couldn’t blame anyone for not believing him either.

As far as I’m concerned, that very fact is powerful evidence to me that a supreme being wouldn’t have even attempted to get a message to mankind via that scenario.

You can’t force yourself to believe something that’s unbelievable just to try to appease a potential angry Godhead. Although, I think many people do pretend to believe it for that very reason. They are simply afraid to not believe it. They’ve been taught that to not believe it is to reject God.

The ultimate brainwashing technique!



Fine. So that’s your belief. Like I say, that’s cool. I hope your happy with it.

It’s not for me.

This is not the tenor of the thread intended.

My apologies Creativesoul.

It has become a spiritual warfare to deepen strife and discredit the affirmations of one Wouldee.

And to suppose to put the ills of the world upon my person and my faith in God, in Christ.

Truly this is what is meant by our being on our cross.

The hatred here is not about me, but Christ in me.

Truthfully, had Christ not be the affirmation of my person, then none of this contempt would endear me to such violation.

Not even in this thread, is the prejudice against Christ, attached to my person, sanctified to be without question, but rather in dispute from the outset.

There is no separating me from the burden of Christ on an unregenerate world that seeks to dismiss culpability for the accountability suffered upon the heart.

I am inseparable from Christ's burdens. These are his wounds being tendered upon one of His in His own's generation.

He is still on the cross to those not on it themselves.

But my burden is light and the yoke is easy. It is not my fight, only my witness of the fight in the hearts of those that reject His truth.

Would that God were truly sought in sincerity, Jesus would not still be hated and crucified today in perpetrated upon the persons of His Church that is nothing more than grateful loving hearts and souls that have found the peace and joy expressed in His love by His truth. Jesus would most certainly be accepted for his words, if for nothing else and that in concert with a love of God.

There is no offence in Jesus Christ. Only that his message is distasteful to those that wish to be kings and queens for a season and cannot.

There is no hatred here Wouldee.

You were trying to tell Jeanniebean that her belief system is flawed and that there is only one God and it’s the God that YOU believe in!.

And you were insinuating that her view represents a defiant arrogant rejection of Jesus Christ as God.



Let’s face it Wouldee,… You’re proselytizing Christianity, and accusing Jeanniebean of rejecting your God.

And then you're trying to claim that hatred is being directed at YOU????

Perhaps the two of you might confer on that among yourselves, Abra.

It is apparent to me that much of what I am saying has as much or more to do with your words.

That always lend themselves to excusing biblical reference as though it is disengenuously slandering truth.

It is only a mirror of the reality, Abra, not the reality itself.

Surely you suffer such indignations upon your own person for your own words , and that from your own mouth as well.

Whether any of it is pertitnent has not been the point, bt rather the assessment engendered upon this thread and colored in dispute over my words.

It was not a battle of gods til the battle of witss called on gods.

To that, I entertained that neither delusion nor imagination haD MERIT IN THIS DISCUSSION.oops

Please keep the focus.

Let it remain on the thread and the discussion that shapes our personal lives and our social interactions autonomously and woith mutual respect and dignity for all.

Surely, we all strive to master life's trials.

Were intelligent discourse to remain generic and find texture that spiritual external influences do in fact impart inspiration, and then in concert with ones judgement, we could have discussed this further without it becoming a god play.

But when it does, then texture is given to imply more than a casual glance of the depth of those influences.

Clearly unavoidable with respect to the content and character of the personalities sharing thoughts in here.

If distinctions become qualified, I qualify.