I always thought that the concept of 'God' in Christian belief systems comprises the following attributes:
1. omnipresence.
2. omniscience.
3. omnipotence.
I had assumed these to be commonly accepted cornerstone axioms in all Christian belief systems and was quite surprised and confused and disturbed when I read things like this: http://www.biblestudy.org/theplainertruth/is-god-everywhere-at-the-same-time.htm...

There may be two fundamentally different concepts of 'God':
(A) the mystical view: unio mystica: God as the holographic All-Being that has two aspects: 1. Void, 2. Creation.
(B) the personal view: God as a worldly person, being located in space-time, having different behaviour, moods, attitudes at different times, behaving particularly towards individuals.

This latter view (B) seems to be the one which is displayed in the Old Testament of the bible.
The (A) view seems closer to the New Testament. I don't feel sure about Jesus' references about his "Father", whether he meant a "higher being" of which he himself was created in a vertical relationship and which then could not be the (A) view God?
Or did he refer to God as his Father in a mystical view (A)?
Or both?
I feel certain that Jesus was not referring to the Old Testament 'God' who rather seems like a too powerful immature pubertary youth throwing tantrums every now and then.

I find it difficult to grasp why people in Christian communities go so far to close their eyes at such severe incongruencies in the Old Testament and explain them away with a fervor as if their life depends on it. It is regarded as blasphemy to question these traditional beliefs about 'God' which are not even clearly defined. Most Christian churches' beliefs seem to be a very instable house of cards that collapses easily when looking too closely at it. But why?
I can't understand this logically, these sort of belief systems seem like a psychological endless loop which perpetuates a certain situation of running in a circle, like in a treadmill.

Furthermore, I'm now getting more and more engaged in such a church and don't know how to deal with it. Feels like a Hollow Heaven belief system. Difficult to deal with.

No, I have to follow my guidance, I receive clear signals from my guidance telling me that I shall engage with this church and shuffle it up a bit, it's a challenging task, for me and for the people in the church who listen to me, because I shake their beliefs. The people in this church are very nice and friendly and seem to have a deep spiritual heart connection, but their beliefs block their progress, someone has to speak to them. My guidance is very clear about this.

In the link above that blog writer mixes a quote from Genesis with a metaphor about today's electronic media, and then comes up with his own conclusion. He even seems to disregard the quote that God is everywhere in spirit. That writer/blogger seems to jump around alot !  But his jumping around points out that it's hard to think of an omniscient God-filled Everywhere/Everything.

Perhaps the Genesis writer had focussed on a particular 'place' for God because he couldn't write about God covering everything all at once.  You could ask your 'congregation' how they would write to show God's Omnipresence, etc. Trick question, as perhaps it's not possible, since writing moves with linear logic and God's nature is beyond the linear.

You, unlike those church members, are moving beyond linear experiences based in the physical world. You and other afterlife explorers go on into your own experiences of  the evidences of omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience while you're in your afterlife states.
Omni-this and that are not just words to you as they are to people outside those experiences.

Perhaps the best thing we can do for others whose consciousness is stuck in the physical is to gently dissolve their edges of the physical world, so they can move more easily into wider awareness.

For example, they themselves are not  existing in just one spot and time. Because they use electronic communications, because they pray and dream, because they have and give memories, etc, then  they are existing through their influences in many places at once. So much more so does the power of God!

Once their locus focus is expanded like that, perhaps some then might want to expand their range even further with meditations, OBing, retrievals etc.

Issues of the spirit are best when explored 

Quote:


  Hi there Oliver,

  That's not really what i was trying to convey.  I suspect that the "Father" Yeshua referenced to was the original consciousness, the creative spark that set all into motion.  I call this "Source".  Yeshua is very clear about making a distinction between his individuality  and existence and his "Fathers'", yet he affirms that he has become one with that Consciousness through living PUL perfectly. 

  What i was saying also is that i've learned that Yeshua's "Disk" is the Co-Creator of this particular Universes.  Yeshua's Disk knew this Oneness with Source, well before he ever entered as a human.  He became human, and let himself cover over a certain amount of attunement to Source, in order to provide a powerful human example of a way back to that at-one-ness with Source and PUL Consciousness, and the way to the "Father" is through PUL.

There are other Universes and realities, co created by other "Disks".   In a sense, Yeshua and his Disk is no different than us--we have the same or similar potential to become Co Creator Gods.  The only difference is that his Consciousness and Disk was of those that separated but the first to fully remerge with Source aka God.  He's always been a sort of Mozart of spiritual growth, for whatever reason.   

  We will remember and do similar as we grow. 

  Regarding the OT vs the NT and all that, i suspect it's not as black and white as many, both religious and non religious, seem to make it out as. 

  I suspect it's a curious admixture of E.T. influences, Disk influences, Source influences, and of course limited human interpetation and perceptions. 

  You may be curious to know that Edgar Cayce's guidance often indicated that the Disk that Yeshua is part of, had other lives in ancient times and influenced the O.T. in various ways.  Now was his other personalities always PUL filled like he was in his life as Yeshua, definitely NOT--these other selves of his erred sometimes and weren't always completely attuned to PUL, but spiritual teachers and leaders nonetheless. 

That's an interesting idea, Oliver 

Re: "Texts could be classified according to the sort of material..."

Would these key verses be in their same order, only color-coded?
Or grouped by topic or source?

I agree with you, Oliver.

Strange that with so many copies printed that some publisher hasn't attempted something at least similiar.  Any 'reorganization' of the bible may require a  council of Trent or two thousand to make it acceptable. 

There's a bible bookstore near me so I'll try to find out some sample forms of indexing already available. Maybe that would show a publisher willing to try such a project.     I've tried browsing there before and they about threw me out --made me wonder if maybe it's a front for some other activity. But now I have a goal.

Woops,

yes, you did say that.  Apologies, I forgot. I just didn't want the idea to pass away.

So how does that start?  A little(digital) acorn like a blog?

I agree that the OT and NT should be separated, with the exceptions of the Psalms and Proverbs which I think should be included with the NT (renamed appropriately).

I agree that all the books should be sorted, categorized, and ranked and other books included. This would undo the undue influence of the proto-orthodox church, which influenced the bishops who finalized the canon, claiming they were doing nothing new, just reflecting the 'Spirit of the Church.' Sort of like having a cart and then deciding they needed the proverbial horse (or donkey!). Sorry for that. I did a tour in Iraq and couldn't help noticing the donkey carts! Oh, did I mention Constantine and Theodosius?

But but but...you said something about giving priority to the words of Jesus. That sounds well and good but we can't be sure which were the actual words of Jesus. When you get into textual research, determining the actual words become a daunting task (manuscripts differences, transcriptional errors, interpolations, ect.). That's not to mention what was said by the apostles. Short of direct input from Guidance I'm not sure how such a project could have the integrity required. Great idea though. Maybe there is someone who could pull it off. Not trying to shoot down your idea, although it sounds like I am. I actually love it! I just see huge problems in the execution.