Copyrighted Logo

css menu by Css3Menu.com


 

Bruce's 5th book, a Home Study Course, is now available.
Books & Tapes by Bruce Moen
    Bruce's Blog now at http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/blog....

  HomeHelpSearchLoginRegister  
 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print
The case for a loving God vs. an "all that is" (Read 22106 times)
I Am Dude
Super Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1462
Gender: male
Re: The case for a loving God vs. an "all that is
Reply #60 - Jul 25th, 2008 at 1:02pm
 
Right on vajra.  I agree.  I believe love is most likely the source consciousness' one and only state of being.  Therefore, we feel love when we act/think according to our innermost being(Source).
Back to top
 

But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you.
 
IP Logged
 
betson
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 3445
SE USA
Gender: female
Re: The case for a loving God vs. an "all that is"
Reply #61 - Jul 25th, 2008 at 1:09pm
 
We/ our souls separate from God in many ways.  God-as-Love doesn't exist separate from us, but we do get distracted -- Do we ever! That's why our returns to God are so overwhelming!

We think we're coming closer to God by talking about related topics and practicing methods that we think will bring us closer. But we're still not united with the Loving God That IS All until we change our state of being.

Many of us try to bridge the gap, but also many don't try any longer. They have given up for now, and so their degree of separation is even greater. God gives them this right and God is patient. Hopefully 'He' also is amused by our antics.

When we come here to the earthplane seeking knowledge, we have left God and his garden Paradise for us. Little do we realize that all we do here is remember bits of what we already knew --that Love is the essence of knowledge, that All exists in unity. We have separated our 'ego' out from the All-That-Is (God, Love) and then look back to try to recall the All, but it is too much for our separated self to understand.

It's so difficult for the finite to comprehend the infinite until it remerges with the essence of it--the essence that is the Loving God-That-Is-All.  Smiley

Bets


Back to top
 

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Shakespeare
 
IP Logged
 
vajra
Ex Member


Re: The case for a loving God vs. an "all that is
Reply #62 - Jul 25th, 2008 at 1:19pm
 
Smiley There's no doubt Dude that at the practical level love seems to underly  pretty much everything. There are other modes of expression that we can and do indulge in most of the time, but the underlying 'truth', 'reality' or the best practice/least suffering path seems to be based on it. (tough to get to the point where you could say you know that experientially, and in it's entirety. But it certainly seems true in the instances where we can find the courage to raise our game to test the proposition)

It's hard on the ego to swallow the remembering part Bets, the idea that we're effectively if not only at least mostly digging ourselves out of a self made mess.

It may not be the only reason we're here (given that it's all presumably in accordance with God's will) - but if as many teach it's not something He created, then He probably has a purpose for it, or it's at least within a possibly infinite band of possibility that's just fine by Him...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
LaffingRain
Super Member
*****
Offline


Choose this Day

Posts: 5249
Arizona
Gender: female
Re: The case for a loving God vs. an "all that is
Reply #63 - Jul 25th, 2008 at 1:46pm
 
Quote:
I would say, from my own experience, that if you look for a loving God/AllThatIs you will find one.

The evidence cannot come from any one of us, personally, because it must be your experience.

That is all I know about it.

love, blink


Blink, I don't know how you manage to sum up so well but you did it again.
It is what we focus on, what we want to see, is what we will see, to say, to be one-pointed is also to be creative to create what we want to see, and there is power in numbers as well. Yet what we wish to see, to create, must become an experience, to express that.
I had this minor? revelation once. the idea was if I did not express love, as in verbal, then love remained unreal and unmanifested.
it appears the only thing holding us back from expressing love is fear of nonacceptance. I can guarantee everyone there is a point where fear is no longer there to hold back the expressions of Love, so long as there are no conditions being imposed on yourself to express it.

Doc's quote: So yes, there may be a unity of all things, and we may be individual points of God consciousness, but none of these ideas explains whether the superconsciousness that is God is loving, or simply a unity.
____
I don't understand how we can have a unity without love being the essence of unity? I have to re-read your entire post to get to the real question...quote "It was whether there was a superconsciousness that is God, to which we do not currently have access that is loving "

Either we understand God is Love, or we deny that God is Love. here Doc seems to deny God is Love. that may be because his perceptions will say deny God is Love.
Perceptions are just perceptions.
perceptions are not knowledge, or to say, direct experience of the voice for God. In my book, which is only like a road map, which is only my personal experience, nonsharable, but presented in limited words here, the voice for God is labeled the holy spirit.
for understanding what holy means, to me, it means whole knowledge, direct experience internally, which speaks to me, in the context of my belief system platform.

Doc says: that's very nice, but it wouldn't hold much water with my wife if I used it as an excuse not to take out the garbage
____

somehow I miss the point here Doc, as I imagine you to be the sort that takes out the garbage without your wife even asking you too.
In a room mate situation, I found it's best to do what is necessary, presuming both are equalized in harmony so assignments don't have to be given in such a household. whoever sees first it needs taken out, just does it.

did I not get the question right?
l
read some more good posts here and adding a bit more. Doc was inferring we do not have access to this loving superconsciousness, which is a God being. We do have access, once we look and focus in that direction. so I think I already answered the question. it is the illusion that linear time blocks access.
I believe I have been participating in a speed up of energies, I call shift in consciousness energies of late, but I witness those same energies here on this board in each you, so we have a unity. In that unity is Love. It must be unconditional, since I never expected anything from any of you, and yet you made your deliveries to me.

It was certainly not a cold, scientific unity. I felt PUL from you guys. btw, when you're thinking of Love, or PUL, it's not quite the same to say it is an emotion only, because, emotions are something we identify as our being, but our essence is aware, emotions, are tools of development within Spirit/God.
PUL is a consistent state of mind, emotions are passing things.

Dude: exceptional understanding you have: quote:
So basically your question is whether the Source loves its creations or is in a neutral state about them.
____

I think this accessment above of Doc's question hit the nail on the head much better than I did and perhaps I answered it somewhat.

I think Doc, if this is what your question was, that Source may be in a nuetral state about it's creations, is another way of asking if we are loved or not by the creator.

it follows in ACIM either we are giving love, or we are asking for love, and no exceptions to the rule.
What is like God, is His Creations.
If we can conceive of a neutral God, then what we are conceiving is not God, we are seeing only ourself as neutral, and attributing that nuetrality to God, or we can say we have made a graven image of God in that regard.

In other words, in this world, we are making it all up. jointly. It only becomes God's kingdom when we open the doors wide for that to manifest. Is why I simply say I'm starring in my own movie.
Back to top
 

... Who takes away death's sting deprives life of bitterness
WWW http://www.facebook.com/LaughingRain2  
IP Logged
 
ultra
Full Member
***
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 119
Re: The case for a loving God vs. an "all that is"
Reply #64 - Jul 25th, 2008 at 2:22pm
 
Yes, it appears we are going around the merry-go-round again!

I would like to agree and add this to blink's comment, Quote:
I would say, from my own experience, that if you look for a loving God/AllThatIs you will find one.

The evidence cannot come from any one of us, personally, because it must be your experience.


Loving-personal God-with form///All-that-is-impersonal God-without form are not exclusive of each other since they are the same thing.

The experience of one or the other can't be proven or refuted since it is a subjective experience between you and God or within you and your Self (why you will find it)- a unique manifestation of God/All-that-is, and therefore compassionately supported and facilitated according to ones needs.

This experience is nothing other than ongoing preparation - the process of realization.

- u  
Back to top
 

"What the soul sees and has experienced, that it knows; the rest is appearance, prejudice and opinion."
   - Sri Aurobindo
 
IP Logged
 
betson
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 3445
SE USA
Gender: female
Re: The case for a loving God vs. an "all that is"
Reply #65 - Jul 25th, 2008 at 3:01pm
 
Regarding the unity of all things under/within God,

(here comes an unnecessary tangent Roll Eyes  )  ---

I like that science too is finding simplicity and unity. Only a half century ago, science was using dissection to find its new truths, divide and learn, but now listen to them! 
Now by scientific measure I am very similiar to bananas or corn! 
Well, who'd have known such a short time ago! Cheesy

In Japan a research center has simplified life down to only 3 or 4 strands of DNA. They ('they?)
can rebuild life from those few strands. The specializations and variety of life's DNA come as the simplified life developes.
(Please excuse my layman's explanation; PBS told it much better.)

Seeing separateness is futile! 
We are all One!

Bets



Back to top
 

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Shakespeare
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print


This is a Peer Moderated Forum. You can report Posting Guideline violations.