Mocking the mockers of God

Kasich delusional; Rubio not in God’s plan by Jon Rappoport


In the comments below this writing on 'religion' in the US political theatre I read:

P.D.C says:   
You think it is funny to mock GOD? All I can say is you better be prepaird to make your bed in hell.

I moved to say:
Hang on a bit - if what is being discussed is a corrupt culture that 'mocks' God by using His name without His Nature - then it is the mockers who are being mocked.
When so many 'use' the idea of God as a deceit to hide in and manipulate through, many feel the name cant be used because its been given corrupted meanings as a result of no longer being actually connected with. Instead an image or symbol or concept of 'God' is hyped up and 'given' power. There are warnings against this in the Bible that no longer find ears to hear.

How do you know if the God you love is real? (that's a trick question).
You know what is real by recognizing it in love and extending love to it.
If you try to love hate - it will not return your love but devour it and tell you that sacrifice is 'love' and that love is hateful weakness that works against your struggle to sacrifice and be free of unworthiness.
Love reveals you already worthy - and it is this quality of being that recognizes itself in others - and in the world - and extends appreciation and gratitude for the gift.
Another term for God is Mercy or Unconditional Acceptance. if you know better than God - stay in what your own judgement demands of you. But the Last Judgement is a Restatement of the First Creation: You Are my Beloved in Whom Is My Delight.
Jesus was a way-shower - not a sacrificial victim to appease a god of hate.

Prepare yourself for Life by self-honesty - not coercive conformity to feared outcomes.
Appearances can be faked - but a false self-assertion is a mask that always inevitably slips.
Such is a time for celebration! Light has entered - what are you going to do with it? "Kill the hypocrite!" or open a communication that until now could not be had.
When the one who feels they deserve death is extended Life they have a real choice to accept and recognize Life. Otherwise the hatred  rejoices in its 'righteousness' and feels 'closer to its god'.

As I indicated in a post on another recent Rappo-Rap - we cant damage the Original - but we can suffer a distorted and conflicted copy. It is your balance of mind that you keep in the heart - not God's Well Being. Taking offence is a choice - with consequence.
Be ye perfect even as God is Perfect - could mean Be on purpose and whole in unified purpose in your own consciousness so as to align and attune to Universal Purpose. It has nothing to do with what FORM this takes. But only love is capable of wholeness - where hate has to have at least something OTHER than itself to seem to happen.
The god of HATE is the changing of an Intimacy of being to a world of ugly strangers - against whom the elect and elite seek to prevail. Its a scam but with an extremely intense force of will in it. (Though I now see the true Will was forced down and then blamed in false scapegoating).
Jesus exemplified discovering the true Will of the relational situation - by pausing the mind of reaction and putting it behind - then what rises clear as Obvious is truth to rest in - as balanced action.
Take up thy bed from hell and walk!

Justifictions posing as The Reality

Religious Children Have Trouble Distinguishing Reality from Fiction

How crazy and sloppy is this piece of writing on a so called "study" framed in such vague and variable terms?


My comment:

Clearly the author has a definition of 'reality' that presumes to judge the choices of  others rather than understand them.

Social, cultural and familial conditioning is known about - in whatever one is born into. However, such conditioning does not 'stick' and is only selectively taken on - according a wide range of variables.

In the term 'religious' as used in this article, I would include any information or story that is required to be believed or at least shown outer allegiance in behaviour.

Scientism believes it is dealing with fact and therefore superior to and in righteous judgement over 'silly superstition'. The same thing happened to religion with religionism.

If one's primary motive is to forge a personal and collective identity - as a way to limit reality to terms of control - then regardless the form it takes - it is ignorant of the reality of a wholeness of being - for the masked persona is centre stage and the altar of a true desire lived and shared is thus hidden.

The mask depends on perpetual war to justify itself over and against others. The blind self-righteous assertion always generates a like response - because we hate to be forced against our will. But oppositional vengeance (hatred) is not our true will.

Stories can be used for and in support of wholeness, health and integration as well as for weaving self-justifictions. Stories are rich in cultural information that in a sense is part of a rich cultural inheritance from all that have gone before us. The appreciation of the information in story is many levelled, and what on surface is an adventure can hold depths of reflection of guidance and support for the embracing of what it is to live Human.

A disconnected, analytical mind is a fantasy that can serve purpose when kept in its place - but can become a means to become hostage to a false sense of power when given to a cold and loveless intent. There IS no ultimate 'disconnecting' of mind from the Gift of Awareness by which it knows itself existing. It's a trick of focusing in thought that is not true of you.

In a world of increasing disinformation, deceit and desperation to maintain the mask of identity and control, it is as if 'reality' is breaking down. But in truth it is idols or images/models of reality that no longer 'work' or can no longer be maintained - and so we are re-connecting with feelings the identity was invoked to protect against; including terror and rage, grief and despair. We HATE to feel our self-hatred as we fear to feel our terror and rage to escape our rage. In such intensity we go to great lengths to dissociate and 'protect' a fragment of our self from such intolerable state, covering our tracks as we set it up - or it would not work. Unconscious is thus defended to remain so - and the patterning of such defence is of multiple shifting oppositional tensions. The scientific mind tends to dissociate from feeling - as a mode of control over feeling. It took this mantle on from religious beliefs that asserted rigid ideas of perfection as the one truth as ways to 'overcome' what were felt to be sinful or evil feelings and thoughts.

Everyone and every era and culture works out or rather unfolds it own strategy of 'coping' with the human conditioning - which is difficult to uncover and heal because it is protected, defended and even worshipped as The Truth.

If we 'read' everyone and everything to see if it supports or agrees with us, only letting it in if it does, and otherwise subjecting it to judgements that operate as our personal defence against what we refuse to relate of communicate with - are we not having trouble in distinguishing reality from fantasy? And is that a sin or a confusion calling for a healing response?

Talking to God?

Kronic Shade said on the Internet:

There's certainly tons of nuts out there that think they talk to God everyday, and yet in spite of how crazy they'd have to be, I bet the majority of them are at least socially aware enough to know that telling people about their conversations, which happen specifically inside their own heads, would never serve as convincing proof to any semi-reasonable person ever lol. Thinking that it would is taking one stupid belief and then raising it to a hole new level of crazy.

I said to Kronic Shade something about 'talking to God' that moved up to share in me :

Everyone is ALWAYS talking to God. But have trained themselves to believe they are more important and attending something much more important. I'll tell you a joke that might get it across: 

This guy John sees Bill Gates at an airport lounge and seizing the opportunity, introduces himself and asks if Bill will do him a favour and just greet him when he passes by with his friend in a few minutes time. Bill says "ok John". John and his friend pass by later and Bill looks up and says "Hi John!" and John loudly interrupts him "F++k off Gates - cant you see I'm busy!"

Everyone is unique. Some people are comfortable in a verbal simplicity out front - some keep their feelings very very guarded and only open them in special occasions. But it is what is in the heart that returns - though if the heart is actively blocked by a lot of negative feelings that are themselves denied - as in 'tough nut' - then there's nothing really being shared at all - except the negativity leaks out all around and that then becomes the false god - where what we are becomes defined by shit happening everywhere - and there's no one to trust and no real way out but to fight for whatever you can get. 

That's a kind of god too... the devil you (think) you know. If I want to talk to God I listen for what truly moves me and go with that in the way it moves me. That might be challenging but it feels good as a sense of worth in action - alive. Words are crap to communicate with - its always simpler and closer than words. That's why we invented words - to get away from the simple closeness of Life. When you shit on people or denigrate them - it doesn't make you higher - it just stores up your treasure in hell. When you honour people for that they are more than they seem and can learn and discover what they need just as you do in your own way - you store up your treasure in heaven. This can be taken as in the future - but I don't mean it like that. Your Now is your current responsibility. Inescapable - but HOW you choose to use that is up to you. 

I don't think it matters whether one believes in "God" as such. But if you are strongly believing against something - anything - it wont be allowed into your perception. Ironic to use the Gates of Hell for a God joke - but the idea of God as a very special and powerful persona is at best a stepping stone to move on from. But wherever we are at is our only starting place from which to move. Here's to the God in you - which makes me a crazy nut - if you want. Unless a nut falls to the ground and seems to die no shoot shall grow from it. I was a hard nut to crack - perhaps God laughs at the joke! Lightening up is better than trading lightening bolts - but - its your choice.

Kronic Shade back to me

What youre talking about is a personal, and very spiritual, perception/interaction with reality. What I'm talking about is people, who debate the existence of god by saying "if he doesn't exist then how do you explain the voices in my head!", and thinking they made a good point.

My reply:

Yes, as personalities we come in every variety of patterning of energetic attractions and repulsion. Why do we get riled by some when others don't? You are right that some present a barn door at point blank range to shoot down - but they are not listening and refuse to do anything but seek to use your own mind against you - so why get drawn in? We all have resonances that are triggered into reaction that we can learn from or just keep reacting with. Is the conditioning that seems to force us to react so different from 'voices in our head'? Yes in some ways but not in others. It feels to me that the desire - and sometimes the urgency to help or teach or fix others is the last ditch defence against truly accepting that help myself. Its the way the mind works to defend the 'personality' against what might be called the pre-verbal being - the original nature - that 'civilising' has to temporarily cover over to some degree - but not to demonize and deny. When our true nature is denied it leaks out in all kinds of ways. Suppressed joy can make us sick and disconnected 'people' seek connection in all kinds of ways. True joy is not a sense of disconnection. I don't give worthship to a god of sacrifice - but that is a deeper imprint than even religions. Where's our joy in life? It is sacrificed to the god of fear and guilt. Have a look where we deny ourselves and then have self-hate that needs to blame outside. I feel to develop discernment as to who I address and what moves me. You like a bit of a rant - ok. There's frustration. That's honesty. Did the guy with the voices in his head cause it - or trigger something already in you? I'm not pushing anything here - just enjoy opening up a perspective that I enjoy - and extend by invitation - no strings.

Proof is in the Pudding

After watching a movie about Gore Vidal's life I dropped into a youtube discussion on  God and stuff and then enjoyed making a few comments.

- - -
# 1 Main comment:

Our self-definition is our usually unconscious core beliefs as to what and who and where we are in relation to any and everything - for so do we perceive and experience ourself to be.
The 'add-on' beliefs are part of the identification within the persona that is a construct of such beliefs, feeling, thoughts and their acting out.
If one truly believes something then it is not coercively initiated but freely accepted and lived.
Reducing everything to forms or concepts - as if then to discuss toward an outcome of any clarity is backwards. For the Living Context is the relationship arising from a shared purpose or desire. Without such relationship, communication is rendered into weaponry of competing assertive identity.
Thus a world in which war of destruction, misery and loss of all kinds is perpetrated in the name of God or Love or Freedom - or any other 'Divine' or innate quality to a balanced and unconflicted movement of being. Only such qualities can be Wholly embraced - yet the idol or image or concept of them is accepted instead OR ELSE!
Gore Vidal is correct in discerning that a god of coercion is unworthy of our capacity to know true and free will.
However, Babel is much more than a fragmentation of tongues - it is where even the parts of the mind cannot communicate or serve common purpose - for the simple act of using its capacity against its true, innate or 'Divine' function.
Not that we are 'punished' for such act - but that such act is self-limiting, self-sacrificing and self-punishing WHILE the act is persisted in. Of course the mind in a posture of independence and opposition is already a story and from such seeds come endless dram to account for and justify the original premise - of being somehow outside and apart from the Whole, as the power of a different Cause and wielding different effects that testify a hidden powerlessness seeking power and validation for ITSELF apart and alone. This is the tragicomedy of our Personae as well as the Great Game that can be played in almost infinite variations excepting that core elements of drama are integrally woven with evil of threat or loss that then gives a different meaning to the pre-condition, and thus a movement to overcome or escape the threat or adversity. To be exclusively identified in character may seem very fulfilling as the peak experience to the fragment that identifies in winning - but the provision of such is an increasingly denied and abandoned supporting cast of 'otherness'. Hence the awakening drama of the Prodigal Son - of the recognition of wretched self-illusion and its wasteland of spiritual poverty - from which the impulse, memory or prompting grace of one's integral or 'Divine' Inheritance, inspires a purpose that meets a truly shared response of Life - rather than crony and phoney alliances of the tacit attempt to use others lovelessly.
Whatever anyone thinks they believe - what they do and be manifestly present as - tells the true of it. The identity in persona or mask is not our true Cause or Being - but while we are in the physical experience it either serves purpose or fragments in an imagination of self-specialness - by which a filtered and distorted 'version' of the Whole reflects a partiality associated with sin and thus denied or hidden.
In a sense it does not matter what your personal way of re-integrating is so much as the experiential and relational event of giving and receiving a true Humanity. I articulate here because I have joy in the invitation to Feel from a deeper Perspective - not to assert 'my' truth or 'the' truth. But we can all recognize what is truly resonating with our current sense of who we truly feel and know ourself to be - and often we do so after recognizing what we are NOT. IE Not accepting of a coercive, victimizing, or mechanically loveless existence. That such a pattern is so pervasive in our world suggests that we are as individuals, accepting and believing and serving such a purpose - or we would see and share a different world - and of course there are examples where we do - but many deceits that play on the conformity of appearances of love and respectability - particularly in defence against a sense of being reviled, rejected or ridiculed - or indeed even more extreme forms of hateful outcome.
To religionists Gore Vidal may seem the ungodly - and therefore less 'moral', but appearances can and often are deceptive. True moral integrity is quite unselfconscious and calls no attention to itself - indeed it claims no self specialness - not asserts false modesty - being thoughtlessly embracing of the true Qualities of the moment at hand.

- - - #2

Ollie Phelan commented generally:

But Religions should be criticised , especially if they claim to know the truth . When a scientist does an experiment , he repeats it about 100 times to see if hes made an error . Then when hes satisfied he sends the results to another HUNDRED labs to replicate the same experiment and look for faults . In the end , the experiment has been tested , scrutinised , criticised , and dissected for mistakes a thousand times . THEN ......its published for every other scientist and peer to read and criticise . Religion says " NO , no testing our ideas "

To Ollie Phelan and all:

There are all sorts of signs that many such sci-truths are not as reproducible as presumed - along with corruptions of the peer review system and indeed institutional corruptions of The Establishment (sic).
But I get the gist of your point and it has a good point - because if one is a lover of truth then one need never fear critical debate. However, you are aware, (I presume), that language can and generally is used to assert 'narratives' or interpreted 'truths' so as to undermine, invalidate or discredit the rivals - by fair means or foul.
Insofar as The Individual relationship within a spiritually unfolding Life was subverted and corrupted to social control of State Religion - then that is a wielding of power over Individuals in the disguise of serving a Group Identity to which the Individual is sacrificed and conformed.
But the innate Religious or Spiritual Sense is an Intimacy of Life that no man can IN FACT usurp or break asunder - but only deceit of guilt and fear can rob one's true Inheritance OF.
Whereas up to a point one can test the grosser aspects of the 'material world' with scientific method - when it comes to uncovering and illuminating truth within our own Consciousness OF event, relation or inner qualities of experience, the only guide is the love of truth. We do test out our ideas and beliefs - for that gives us the life we fruit as their result. But I only need look to the qualities that you extend to discern 'where' you are coming from. If you demonstrate an honouring willingness to communicate - I don't need to know the particulars of the belief system that serves your freedom and desire to do so.
So Vidal tested the idea of a coercive victimizing 'god' and an inner honesty found it did not match his sense of anything worshipful. Basically the idea that the evil within us must be burned out or nuked is the dominant idea in the world today. And science is largely on board with supplying the technology to 'serve humanity' - but scrape away the sugar coating and the same old god is sacrificing the Way, the Truth and the Life as it has since the original imprint that we are still conformed and conditioned to reenact. It subverts the teaching of Jesus into such a sacrifice - but that is still stuffing New Wine into old paradigm!

- - -#3
Pedro de Almeida said in general commenting:

God and religion are two different things for sure. Religion is humans tricking humans and God is Humans fooling themselves. Religions can be disproven and God does not exist (until proof otherwise =P)

To Pedro de Almeida - and generally commenting:

And the idea ''Humans' is God fooling Him/Her Self.
Existence cannot be proven excepting anything and Everything (physical or non physical) - without exception - embodies such quality of being regardless any other meaning ascribed to it.
Hence one of the 'Names' of the Source or Cause and Totality of All That Is is... I Am That I Am.
So while it may be true to say God does not exist at the level of things or objects separate from the Subject - its simply true that one cannot say anything about G-d at all - or one inherently makes an image or form of G-d and participates in the insanity of self-concept at war with its own true Nature. Such a painful, threatening and corrupted or evil sense of self as then reflects is the basis for the Heavy Denial of Consciousness and the Deep Compression into a seemingly separate and temporarily ignorant escape from deep inner conflict.
What is it that drives people? It CAN be a joyous spontaneity of clear purpose - but in almost total now it is the engine of fear and guilt, blame and shame, anger and aversion to pain. THAT is the 'religion' I see the world sucking on and conforming to - regardless the surface differentiations of 'identity politicking'.
But I don't have to use the word or symbol G-d to point to what I mean by it. I can test and challenge the false religion (template) and drive out the moneylenders (that which has no true belonging in the Temple), to make a receptivity through which Life - beyond name and form - can prove itself - or rather Fruit Itself as my own shared contribution.
Anything can mean anything if one is not honestly grounded in one's own Life - hence it does in a crazy world that thinks its thinking is genuine currency. Hollow forms and empty ritual are the mark of attempt to cover or escape a loss of love. The more people act as if loveless is natural, the more they sacrifice their core Innocence of being to prop up an illusion of power.
One cant get a meaningful answer from a meaningless question. Knowing what to ask is probably the hard bit - because deceits frame everything in such a way as to deny any real choice or ability to question.

Our True Source and Being - in Cinema

Cinema chains refuse to show advert featuring Lord's Prayer

Church of England says it is bewildered by leading chains’ stance on advert that was intended to play before new Star Wars film

What is it to honour our Source that IS Life, for our little minds cannot but filter, distort and usurp with their own little kingdom in hunger for power if we use them to trespass and to identify in grievance with the reflection or 'comeback' of such judgement.
What is it to be Mindful of our Existence, our sustenance and our true (not deceitful) guidance and direction in Life?
Of course the WOLF can HIDE in sheep's clothing and NOTHING is as it seems to anyone who is not wary of such 'phishing' attacks and hacking into our minds.
And a fearfully guilt-adulterated dilution of a true honesty or integrity of conscious being can be more obstructive than the open 'opposition' of proxy militant 'atheists'.
Banning Christianity might do more to help it regain true foundations than using it for making a war and greed society 'respectable'. But really it is up to You - each and all - as to what you accept as your Source, Life and guidance and therefore how you interpret and experience any event - including the 'fear of causing offence' that may attract vilification of negative publicity and adverse conditions for business.
Personally I feel persuasive advertising is the attempt to CHANGE or COERCE others and is therefore part of the art of deceit. However - if information is simply communicated in sharing witness - it will not be coming from a sense of powerlessness seeking power - but will feel Life. Of course that will offend some who hate their Life and seek to sacrifice Life to a mentality of joyless control. Persecution is part of the learning to more deeply accept oneself - because what we hate in ourself is the reflections we 'love' to hate in the world.
Beliefs literally make experience. But the surface presentation 'beliefs' make a mask.
Does one go to the Cinema to be entranced by illusion? Yes - but dreams can serve Life or they can usurp appreciation of Life. Ultimately, prayer is our true desire. Look therefore at what we ARE asking for - and then recognize our will is done. But it is much deeper and more complex than the good v bad narrative that is used to mask and hide inner distress.

Reframing Religion and Spirituality

An article:
Reframing Religion and Spirituality
at the Daily Bell

I felt to address the mind's framing of the nature of being as the world we experience:
- - -

Everything true has already been re-framed - hence the separation and division of a war-mind - starkly or subtly operating.
Noticing the false framing within our mind, allows one to choose not to use it - and that invites and allows Spirit to illuminate what we took to be some other kind of matter.

The mind can be like a fig-leaf by which to hide from an exposure or vulnerability that has no basis in fact but that fear believes it so and thus fear makes it so.
Hiding fear gives it power in the dark or unconscious mind.

The 'end-times' are exposing the fear associated with the core beliefs of the human conditioning. Fear says there are no choice but as it frames choices. But one can choose not to listen or act from such a frame and thus awaken perspective upon it.

Perhaps its easier to say it is all about identity. When we forget our Source-Nature we lose awareness of That which identifies us perfectly and amidst the sense of limitation, loss and conflict that then ensues, seek to regain and assert our own identity from the presumption of separation. And no matter how idealistic we may attempt to be we are not rested or at one with the truth of what we are.

Presence pervades, embraces and transcends the form - but the would-be thief takes the form as if to have it specially for themselves. This worships form while denying Spirit. Yet even this becomes a gift to the willingness to love truth because it reflects that which is untrue of you as a way of releasing what was otherwise hidden and protected from change.

No one can really change another but that other chooses or accepts for themself. But no one can accept a healing transformation and still walk in the world that the fear dictated. Our vibrational state attunes our perspective.

Everything is religion - in the sense of attempting to fulfil or complete or unify some sense of self - but the true relationship is lost by searching from a conviction one is alone and apart and lacking.

Wholeness is our gift to the world; to our relationships - and is not the world's function to provide. But in a direct relating is the world framed as the flowing Now. And this is not a sense of self-lack but a cup that runneth over.

Of course the 'demons guard the treasure' - so only true love can pass through. And as one is willing to accept love - does it extend through us for such is its nature. Then see what you shall see.

The magical identity hides hate

The article: The Magical Illusion of a Christian America
raises ideas of religious identity or indeed anti religious identity. I felt to comment thus:

- - -
Definitions SEEM to bring a sense of identity in stability and thus an illusion of control along with an inherent bias of self-specialness that makes them rigidly defended against change rather than fluidly part of an unfolding conscious appreciation of that which identifies Life, Self and Meaning as an ever fresh recognition and extension of value.

Definitions are part of the current experience of the human consciousness but are generally not recognized as human conditioning except by those who would mask a private agenda behind the appearance that has become accepted in place of the tangible presence of value.

'Christian' thus comes to mean whatever anyone decides it means to them in absence of any demonstration of Christ love extended in recognition.
In other words, the mind redefines all things unto its own image and then seeks to prevail, that is, to make its version 'true' by invalidation or denying threat to its 'identity', that is held sacrosanct and not open to question or revision excepting it will 'evolve' in terms of adapting and surviving - including dropping significant aspects of the identity to change the form of the mask.

Personal identity is defence within a presumption of threat and hostility. It may join with others in mutual agreements that make a relative peace but always as a group that defends itself likewise.

Everything remains open for Humanity to accept and embrace its true and abundant inheritance BUT for the assertion of personal will upon a true or honest communication - for Life Is Communication - not merely information but the relational dance of meanings discovered, embraced and shared.

The Jesus story and its teaching are exactly illuminating this facet of the human conditioning, but instead of accepting the message, the messenger was made special, separate, and no longer an example in which to recognize our own Life. If anything it generally became subverted to the old religion of guilt and sacrifice of joy for this has been the way of the world.

A lie seeks whatever works to justify itself and thus adulterates the currency of exchange with division and coercive reaction. It may not believe itself a liar, but if asserting certainty as a way of denying self-doubt, the truth is not being communicated because it is feared.
More than that, what is being communicated is actively working to protect against such fear being brought to awareness and to prevent exposure of whatever tricks are being employed to obfuscate, or sow dissension or diversion from critical points.

The personal identity is in a sense a fig-leaf lie that finds mutually agreed currency and reinforcement by conflict and reaction as much as by agreement.
Who are we beneath our mask? We are that which can truly know and be known. We are the freedom to persist in mask or be open to communication. But within the mask we believe that what is behind the mask is fearful and unacceptable. Until we look within and uncover our true humanity - which we do not manufacture or distort except by taking image and worshipping it.
Kindness is of a kind. Self-specialness is inherent un-kindred. There is a core psychology that can be noticed regardless of the cultural packaging, and identifying this psychology within our own conscious responsibility is waking from the spell of reactive defence to a truly grounded presence - that will then express itself in every kind of cultural or innovative way - but as a willingness of extending an honest presence in which to recognize the other as ourself instead of wanting otherness to be the dumping ground of our unowned and unhealed hatred.
I've gone into a particular direction in this comment, but the illusion of a mask is already magic. Seeing the illusion is breaking the spell. Not to attack the mask or the choice to use it - but to open up a channel of communication where before there was none.
- - -

The following comment to the main article:

I wish I could agree with the conclusion. We've got quite a way to go to become a nation of tolerance. Sadly.

My reply:

The idea of tolerance is brought into being by intolerance. Likewise patience is called on amidst impatience.
But a genuine willingness to relate, to listen and communicate does not start of from predjudice or fear of loss, and then seek to keep face, and so it does not think or define itself 'tolerant' but simply engaged in living relational being.
The attempt to build a world of love within hatred can never ever succeed.
One has to acknowledge the hatred and the fears and wounds beneath to release it.
So I might regard myself as intolerant of tolerance and intolerance - but actually I just don't see through that framework.
It is the fear of hatred and the fear of fear that gives power to them - and those who seek worldly power know this well and use it to get your vote of fear and hatred instead of a discerning presence within they cannot hide the hate and fear that drives their agenda. Now who does not seek worldly power, being free of all hate and fear, throw the first stone...

100% Faith

New Gods: Should we banish faith forever?

Presumed knowledge is blindness to what is actually present.
The terms faith and belief are misused and misidentified.
It is quite so that personal identity professes beliefs or to have faith in what seems reasonably evidenced to their particular perspective. But these are often aspects of a masking identity - for what we actually do, comes from what we actually define and accept ourselves to be in any given moment or situation.
Everyone has 100% faith - but what is it invested in (in any given moment)? One may have faith in 'rational thinking' and presume no faith is involved. But this is the realm of the mask or personae in which assertions of self are justified and defended against the ever changing un-knowability of manifest existence.
The higher mind is out of range to the personality construct - but is natural to one's awareness.
The persona self is a construct and not a thing existing in and of itself.
Identifying exclusively in mask is to be defined and to suffer a coercive and threatening sense of existence. Everyone comes up with their own ways of coping with this - including the supremacist arrogance of a presumed rationality. "Should we banish faith forever?" Is this the New World Order? A joke? or both?
A true science recognizes its foundation in definition - for without self-definition there is NO perspective-experience available. A false science operates as if its predicate is exclusively true.
The "One true God" mistake, is one of exclusive personal definition, and replicates as the one 'empirical truth'. This is a liability of the fight/flight mentality in which the personality has become pervasively identified.
No one has to 'justify' their beliefs in terms of another - but may communicate if approached in a willingness that values communication.
Rationalism divorced from Reason would invalidate anyone who does not conform and use the form of communication as a coercive device. This sort of thing feeds anti rationalism - because meeting a lovelessness in others, is the temptation to project one's own fears and guilts' - one's own feared and hated evil intent - ONTO those who blindly assert power or propagate lovelessness in ways that effectively undermine any other perspective than their own.
This reaction is then equally blind and easily manipulated. Power struggles USE such tactic as a matter of course - hiding within a masked agenda.
Freedom is the inherent capacity to accept into your mind only what is true of you. A conflicted mind is a split persona, and a conflicted world-experience. The evidence belies the foundation. Unless of course one WANTS to keep one's foundation hidden, so as to  interpret all things in its defence.
Belief in separateness - whether apparently religious or apparently atheistic is the same faith. Science can be distorted so as to reinforce this 'faith' as can any spiritual or religious path or culture.
Materialism posits reality without consciousness - or WOULD if it could achieve it. Does not this reveal the hidden agenda of 'rationality' as DENIAL of Consciousness? Is that not THE 'faith' by which the human ego - in any disguise, maintains a semblance of believability and thus its operability in its filtered and distorted version of 'the world'?

The lie is dependent on the truth it 'denies'

I wrote the following, after reading the posting shown below mine: (It addresses the way a lie can subvert and usurp a truth so as to reverse them in its own asserted beliefs and definitions).

- - -

A lie, to succeed must graft onto truth. No one fakes an 11 dollar bill.
Mind-control is the foundation of - the wish for - the father of ... the lie.
It starts at home, an inside job running as a false flag...

Mind is One - but a fragmented vision is legion. How this 'operates' is by asserted deception. Minds then seem each a body. How many look to their foundations? Few indeed, for the deceiver is not really 'out there' or somewhere else.

Because a negative or separating and segregating mentality can usurp the knowing in the heart, bait the mind in reaction, and convince the fearful that it speaks power, that it speaks of protection, that it speaks for you, then it can serve as a sort of template for human experience in which divide and rule operates always to subvert and usurp the original nature.

Christ is not an ideology - and it's 'religion' is universal recognition. Christianity operates a cover over the Christ-light - but only for those who want to persist with what their own thinking tells the eyes and ears to report.

The thirst for truth is not the thirst for power over. Each has its own 'world' and both are in our mind until we see through to the powerlessness of a lie to share, to know or be truly known, to give and receive, to truly have and to be. A world made in our image with no room for the unique creator signature that actually IS every one and every thing - is a dead concept, a stone god, a false idol.

It isn't that there are not inspirational reflections to intuitive knowing in the teachings - but that only the need for truth can discern them, whilst the fearful MUST seek, and MUST sacrifice or crucify joy in the power that shame of powerlessness demands.
The lie would make a shameful nakedness of powerlessness, to hide in the figments of a deceiving and convoluted mind. But truth merely accepts and allows the movement of being to rise as a connected and unified power - yet power OVER nothing and no one - because power over is LOSS of wholeness. This is incomprehensible to a fragmented thinking that thinks it thinks alone.

Not arguing with your political perspective. Consolidation of power operates as a negative or segregating and divisive agenda of a separate self interest. It has personification in various movements, events and individuals, but is also like a frequency channel that one feeds by tuning into it. It's perspective upon itself is self-justification - but who, resting in the truth of their love need justify or explain anything?

In a split mind projected world is both Caesar and Innate Being (aka God/Creation).
The mind of Caesar cannot SEE anything but materialism and the politics of power though it can USE any kind of belief as a leverage for its OWN agenda.
The unified mind cannot see separation - though it can utilize all such beliefs to teach there IS none.
There is NO communication between the two - but both share the same mind in mutually exclusive perspectives.
To invest in a lie and hold it true will lose the capacity to tell one from the other - thus truth is redefined as whatever can be asserted and witnessed as effect. Though insane, such a mind is highly disciplined in defending against exposure, and rules by terror yet disguises in seeming kindness. The more one fights it the stronger it gets, for it is the idea OF conflict.
Love your enemy as your self - not as a strategy, but as abandonment of a secret worship of 'holy hatred'.
Where else would we hide the hatred we disown and deny to our awareness but on the 'other' - who instead of sharing Life are deserving the withholding of Life from?

Christ is also an idea that strengthens by sharing. Not the cult of a special and separate blood sacrifice. Not the appeal of guilt or emasculation of true presence. But a living idea cannot be packaged and bottled and sold. It can only be recognized, welcomed accepted and shared.

As a rule of thumb, if coercion is using the forms of something true, it is at best an alloy and at worst a scam.
As an absolute truth, all truths await the acceptance of your own heart's discernment as to their belonging in and AS the true of You. That which is 'written in your heart' is already present but for uncovering, recognition and acceptance.
These things too have always been known. But knowing is set aside for the experience of an unfolding drama of self in mutual definitions of a world of separate and competing interests. Until its call stirs our attention.

Commenter 'B' wrote:

Strangely, Mr. Machan neglects Nietzsche is this treatment of morality, a topic touched on in every one of his works. Nietzsche showed Kant's ethics to be an idiocy, but here there is no mention.

And regarding Christianity, Macan would do well to study Nietzsche's criticisms of it - Christian asceticism is ALWAYS a vice.

But for something that Nietzsche did not know - or did not find out until very late (a possible reason for the malaise of the last ten years of his life) - I recommend everyone on the DB to read Joseph Atwill - you can at least watch the video, its less than an hour.

Here's the Cliff's Notes version if you simply don't have time:
Jewish unrest in 60's CE
Romans destroy Jerusalem 70 CE
Romans start new imperial cult ~80 CE and write parody books, set in Judea ~30s CE (aka the New Testament)
Christianity starts in Rome, not Israel; first saint is a cousin to the emperor.
Jews allowed to start new Rabbinical School in Lebanon - Romans approve teachings, Messianic Judaism is stamped out, Rabbinical Roman Judaism is born and the Imperial Cult is grafted onto Jewish history, making Rome's history just as deep as the Jewish one.

To know the reach of the Empire known as Leviathan - look no further than the reach of Christianity. And yes, the Queen knows this already, but she was never going to tell you. Neither would her son. Nor his son. Nor his son. You think little Georgie will learn Christian ethics at Eton??? Ha!

This was in comments section of this page (if you want a gist of context for commenter 'B').

Update:
'B' replied to me thus:

Lots of lies seem to do well with nary an iota of truth. The rest of your post is incomprehensible to me, though I seem to recognize the tell tale language signs of Scientology in it.

A lie has no foundation in truth - apart from that it is untrue. But to operate in place of truth it must appear true and mingle in and or mask the true.
To the desire that a lie be true - truth itself is incomprehensible.
Such is the power or capacity to make yourself in your own image and forget that you truly are.
I don't have anything to do with cultish pyramid schemes that set up hierarchies of control and dependence.
But if the forms of the true, become associated with the coercions of deceit, then truth will not communicate through such vocabulary.
One of my points to your summary of the Christian subversion is exactly that; such subversion is the driven purpose of the corrupting lie. To make of something simply revealing, into something false and concealing - and therefore also something then to be opposed and rejected instead of embraced.
In all things we meet but our self truly... or amiss. But true intimacy shares a perspective that is not coercive one upon another. This quality of life is not likely to be believed by one who has been long in the dark of a coercively conditioned mind. But that there IS a quality of relationship available and potential to us that is not coercive is something I feel to witness and invite.
No one comes BETWEEN you and the Life that lives you excepting the wish to control it. THAT is the realm in which the game of powers operates. But it is not the only way to play Life.

From Eternity to here

Reality is.
Existence has one quality - which Is. Also phrased "I Am".
There is no defining appendage to the "I Am" apart from "I Am That I Am".

No conceptual or symbolic differentiation is possible to the Indivisibility of "Is".
Any image of symbol or idea operates the extension and reflection of experience
"I am That I Will be" is not a time reference. Will is Creator. Cause and effect are One.

The One Is the All; the All Are the One.
Who knows the effect/part/son, knows the cause/whole/father.

Indivisibility of giving and receiving is the instant of experiencing existence.
Inclusion embraces all that is given. There is no loss or gap in "I Am".

Experience is the Movement of Being as an ever shifting focus and perspective with an infinitely rich communion/communication. Every facet of every movement is a unique perspective within the whole and a gift to the all of the all as experience of 'Know Thyself'. Experience reveals Existence in ever new appreciations.

Creation Creates only of Itself - there Is nothing else. The idea of creating UN-like itself is part of the freedom of infinite imagination to forget in order to remember. The idea of separating self can be played without loss. The idea of self-image can be played within an embracing wholeness of both/and. While the mind within the self-definition operates either/or. The experience of the separate self sense conditions the identity to a temporal spatial reference that crystallises or solidifies through assertive persistence which then operates as a seeming disconnection from the embracing wholeness of ones Existence.

Imprinted catastrophic trauma, perpetuated over millennia, gives rise to adaptations of a disconnected self-sense operating an inversion of creative expression. Cause is projected onto 'external', to other, and to past, and power is asserted in denying, defending against, and exploiting or subverting such a world to the agenda of a disconnected sense of lack seeking fulfilment externally.

The 'lie' of separation operates in secret minds kept apart from true communication by mutual agreement of definitions that protect fear, division and perceived power as the fragment to be saved from loss and the self-concept to 'become' real or powerful or accepted in its own terms and in its own right.

The model of the world becomes in a sense a contractual substitute for an intimacy such that each operates alone to get for themselves, or join in shifting and temporary alliance to get for themselves and to gain by another's loss.

All the abilities of the separate self sense actually become a consciousness capable of unified action - and though it knows not, the Unified Self never left or it would not exist. Beneath the range of the 'private mind' of command and control, Life abides and operates un-conscious. But as the structure of the consciousness ripens or opens, so is the unifying will rising into the conscious awareness - but interpreted within the terms of its dream of separated identity that it then transforms to reintegrate the wholeness of indivisible and true individuality.

All abilities developed for a fearful agenda become transmuted to a reintegrating purpose - including those which is uncovered in the subconscious or 'hidden mind' as well as the unconscious or denied and discarded mind.

So a contract can be a form of deception wherein a separative power can operate in competing or even cooperating interests.
And a contract can be a good fence maintained and honoured between good neighbours who share the idea of just and honourable exchange of energy and worth-ship within a greater appreciation of Life-Energy and Love-Worthiness. That is, the contract reflects a Covenant of a self-honesty to one's own unified will, as it arises of the movement of being, as the revealing of Existence unto Itself - as human relation.

Most of what passes as currency of religion is no less the realm of author and identity confusion than any other aspect of living and probably more so because the forms of spiritual revelation or cultural inspiration are those within which fear based power seeks to hide in and use to justify itself in, and thus degrades, and subverts to a fearful coercive agenda.

Organized religion is oxymoron - for true 'religion' embodies an unselfconscious and spontaneous intimacy, whose presence communicates to all of a like reception - without any sense of separated self strategy whatsoever.
The key or fundamental issue is what foundation is being operated out from. The disconnected sense has to generate a justifiction for its existence - for it has no actual existence apart from the wish it be true. The wish does not truly create - but does distort and deny true awareness. It has all the power one gives it. This is often confused with the will to survive - but it is really the will to prevail over.

The rage of wish denied ravages our world through every kind of perceived and imagined grievance. Contracts to limit power operate the minds of the 'service to others' polarity and agendas to consolidate power operate the minds of 'service to self' polarity. Both operate a polarity framework that denies Unified or Integrated and Inclusive Self.

Perpetual war is the 'religion' of hating love, so as to love and protect fear and make it seem fair by projecting hatred onto others whose vilification calls forth the sucking of power from the Innocent. For the guilt belongs entirely in the mind that projects. All that is given is received as it is given and no amount of tricksy clever thinking can do more than temporarily obscure the truth of one's choosing and gifting. Our experience IS our gift of knowing and sharing Existence.

Beliefs, Reality and the one true fact

(This was just a response to a line that prompted me to respond from an alternate perspective than 'taking sides').

Max Gross sandra chitayat • posted:
"Religious belief is simply that: a belief. It has no factual basis in reality except that which its believers enforce"

Factual basis in reality?

Their are beliefs that are worn on the outside - like a set of clothes. One can identify with one's mask so as to forget it is a mask.

The beliefs that are actually held ARE one's experience OF reality.

And are re-enforced by the physically focussing mind so as to be experienced in its moment as if no other 'reality' was possible.

But there is a kind of belief which holds open the possibility that one is wrong about the world, and wrong about one's self. It is this belief or intuitive sense that allows new inspiration-information as insight.

Perspectives have their corresponding experience. If you are enjoying a rationalist materialist self-definition - then by all means live it to the full. Your freedom to do so is the same freedom everyone chooses to use along the lines of their own discovery - which is an unfolding experience of exploration and illumination not properly able to be discerned within the limitations of a separative judging 'mentality' based reality. Infinitely rich and dynamically reflective expression does not appear within the framework of dead models.

As for the flux in the Middle East - it has much of fear and hate under cover of self-righteousness about it. As if fear and hate can be eradicated by fear and hate.

If religious belief is a term for substitution for a true embrace of a divine humanity - then it is a case of the wolf in sheep's clothing - seeming to be justified by externals rather than extending a true presence of an interior yielding to That which heals and aligns and corrects error compassionately.

Those who believe their reality is the factual basis, invalidate others who hold different but equally unique perspectives.

Housekeeping can set up house rules as to what is and is not acceptable as well as ways to communicate and deal with issues as they arise. This is cultural responsibility and is a collective of consciousness responsibility. In the materialist belief, consciousness is negated as the field of awareness in and of which all else is experienced, Responsibility is given to external symbols, definitions, beliefs, concepts and facts. Thus we become 'powerlessly' subject to our own mechanism.

The dark ages did not give way to Light. They simply redistributed the same energetic patterns into new forms of 'freedom'.

Forgive and know yourself forgiven - Papal BS?

This post was into a page about the Pope begging forgiveness for the Church for its part in sexual misconduct regarding children in its care.

My comment:

One cannot apologise for what one has not first already at least believed to have done wrong. Apology from an institution is like a welcome sign in a supermarket - neither is a personal communication. 

The Pope may deeply be sorry that suffering has occurred - as may anyone else - but this is not correction.

There is a sense in which we can ALL repent of the mind that uses others for personal gratifications in any regard whatsoever - for in our engaging of such lovelessness do we in some sense support a loveless world.

The church holds the value of forgiveness. My sense of forgiveness is a gift to our self that comes from fully owning and facing our fears, hurts and hates - and all the choices that rise out of such ignorance.

It does not work to wish for forgiveness anymore than wishing something hadn't happened, for wishing is not a wholeness of will. Wishing is of a mind unchanged and unwilling to change. A true change of heart wills action from that fresh presence that can be felt as a shifted perspective rather than attempting different presentations of the same thing.

Institutional self protection is about reputation or image perceived. Perhaps the church that Jesus built on Peter was not an institution - but a real relationship.

Genuinely relating, is love's recognition - not a personal fantasy gratification.

In love's fulfilment one is not inclined to invite, accept or indulge in hateful deceits. The Church could be a voice for love in a world that forgets - but to have any authority it must embody love's presence - and not a wishful presentation of piety or good intentions.

There is hatred in the human heart. It cannot be healed if it is not owned. The excommunication of self-hatred denies love's presence - but love's awareness is for all. None are to be left out. The Pope can speak for the institution he represents, he cannot speak for God nor change the Nature of God's All Embracing Love. But it is true that if we act out of accord with our true nature, we will not know it, share it and recognize it - so in this sense we excommunicate ourselves.

There is much more to the mind than the tiny part that we tend to acknowledge. Unless we can awaken from the persona or surface personality, we will not have a basis to uncover what is at work in our lives when we embody the victim or the victimiser. The issue of child abuse is mostly about power - and wherever there is power over others, there is corruption in one form or another.

Who seeks power over others but those who believe or fear they are powerless? Likewise those who call to external powers to save them will give their power to those who assume the right to manage their lives!

The children inherit the world we pass on in all that we communicate. But they may come to decide what to discard and what to keep from their own sense of the truth of their being. Victimhood is part of our human conditioning - but we can rise above it and thus recondition our minds. It is a matter of perspective.

May the mind that was in Christ Jesus be also in yours - for such was his ministry to uncover and awaken - was it not?

I have lost the link for but in the comments the theme of  a page about Rolf Harris, the theme of forgiveness came up and was aggressively rejected - and the passage from the Lord's Payer was paraphrased: "Forgive as you would be forgiven"

Here is what I wrote in on forgiveness:

This is more radically appreciated as a recognition within one's own consciousness rather than applied as a social coercion or entreaty. As I release you of what I hate in myself but SEE in you - I will experience that release. (You may or may not use the gift according to your own willingness to accept).

The attempt to use religion as a social behavioural coercion hides the practical immediate effective correction in exchange for otherworldly magical beliefs and wishes.

No one can be coerced into releasing their judgement upon their self or upon others - but they can be served with a reflection of their choice - as they are willing to receive it - so as to choose anew. "Judge not, lest ye be judged" is a timeless fact - and not a time space consequence. Judgement of the tree of good and evil is before the world we now take to be Creation - yet is Creation through a lens darkly.

The power of thought is rendered as appearance of weakness in wishing - yet "Thy Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven" signifies an aligned Will - of unified purpose. One of the ways that a separate, opposing, weak or failing and conflicted will is maintained in our mind is via the appeal of victimhood as a method to justify hate and the withdrawal of love. Because we are love and know love its by extending through us, the worship of hate covers the altar of our true devotions.

Far from being used to establish your guilt, this is the error of taking your own self image  or definition in preference to that of your true Created being - which remains un-coverable to your willingness to receive.

The psychology of guilt is the psychology of coercion. If one does not use guilt as a measuring stick - one can see the insanity arising from ignorances that are a result OF belief in guilt. Sin is contagion in the mind unless and until it is put behind - unused - disregarded - unwanted - meaningless to a love of loving.

The pretence that guilt is merely a personal surface or a social disincentive is part of a rationalisation that is called upon to hide it beneath a surface world in which one seems to have the job of either overcoming, fixing or in some way prevailing over adversity. But we do not renew our foundation by covering lies with wishes - no matter how forcefully we assert those wishes.

The crucifixion is a symbol for what we each do unto our Self - while not knowing what we do - at our foundation in the 'world'.

It does not seem we have chosen such a script but that we are unjustly violated, Compassionate embrace for such suffering is needed as a lifeline in a darkness. For a wholly justified hate denies all light. Whatever our lives unfold, we may come to open other perspectives that deepen our own capacity for compassion. The alternative is a religion that worships victimhood as the 'holy truth' of Life. 

We may not find our full willingness immediately, but unless we lean consistently toward a willingness to receive and give truly, we drift as an ever recycling lovelessness in a script of pain, confusion and struggle.

"Who is without sin, let them throw the first stone" is not only calling one to look within and see that one is not without sin - but a call to the sinless honesty that does not need to ex 'communicate' in such terms.

Papal Bull?

The Pope says you do not have to believe to go to Heaven.

What is conscience? The voice of guilt? Apparently so for many. Choosing within the mind in guilt does not open the eyes to Heaven - to a unitive and shared reality.
The inner guidance that discerns the true resonance of your being is the voice for truth. Of course only honesty can discern it. Sooner or later, we all come to a point of being worn out of all the other options... and then the voice for truth reveals what we truly want.
A Pope does not give anything you do not give him first. And anything he or anyone says will not have effect unless it is something you are opening to or believing in your own heart already.
Believing in the heart is different from conceptual camouflage. Anyone can make a mask and invest it with belief - but our experience is the fruit of what we each believes in our heart - which words cannot really contain but only point toward.
Denying the heart is the mind's attempt to protect itself. Wake up to that it does not speak the truth of You.
A true Spirit of helpfulness cannot work as 'divide and rule' and so is truly unifying. The harmony of true relations is 'Heaven'. But to uncover this in one's own awareness must first be true to oneself.
Sacrificing for 'others' is another way of using them for disguised attempts to feel better within a false framework of identity. It is pointless to 'try' to be what you are not as if what you are is unworthy. If you exist you are worthy of existing or else you wouldn't exist! Love's awareness is the 'birthright' of all.

a narrow, rigid mind?

I read a comment that said:
Religious belief implies a narrow, rigid mind.


To a narrow rigid sense... of what religious belief is presumed to be, this must seem irrefutable, self evident and hardly worth saying.

But an open fluid mind can take any thought, perception and experience and use it to open a deeper or more inclusively related perspective or meaning.
This could be called meditation as it is a process in observation and discernment in which presumptions or beliefs about whatever it seems to be are challenged, released and expanded in freshly observed insight and perspective.

Of course the capacity of mind to narrow itself in rigid self-defining ways can be seen in relation to anything where an assertive and coercive identification is running as a presumption of knowing.

Though science does not presume to truly KNOW what anything really IS, its models and working hypothesis are adopted by a mentality that presumes it does!

The extent of manipulative interference of the scientific mind far exceeds anything that religious manipulation could have dreamed of. This may be an indicator of why the control mentality jumped ship to adopt a scientific mask in which to 'sell' and idea of rationality and free thinking as a deeper manipulative intent.

It is not difficult to see what one judges against - in one's own mind. One can also choose to see what we hold in common and share that instead. But a rigid narrow tyranny seeks to prevent these simplicities from being obvious to us all. Such is the nature of a mentality of judgement. It is always against - as if for. And operates the dictum. 'divide and rule'.

Religion might call this 'devil' or 'ego' and science might search out a virus that undermines the integrity of structural functionality and communication. It rests on the belief in a narrow rigid mind.

What truly is the nature of mind? It has NO materiality in itself whatsoever. No dimension and no limitation. All sense of limiting is the action of thoughts in mind being taken as if they were mind itself.

Invalidating a greater perspective

"Is a viewpoint valid, if someone believes in an adult version of Father Christmas?"

I met this comment as a gesture of refusal to even begin to consider anything apparently religious to have any viewpoint to consider or learn from - apart from reinforcing a self-righteousness of superiority in one's own terms.

- - -

Your viewpoint has a validity in that you are no more or less valid than any other human being. That doesn't mean your viewpoint is true, but it means that you are not invalidated by that you are using something and making it true for you at some level.

If you felt the symbol of giving is useful to its reality, you might not need the symbol to do more than work as a focus for intention attention.

If you were to be open to that quality of existence that is a presence and a gift, it may dawn on you in all sorts of ways as a result.

What life is, is something that comes through us and shares itself to then reflects to us.

The symbol of getting is one that takes forms of meaning out of context and redefines to a self-defined context so as to replace art of living with artifice.

So if I said that I still believed in Santa, the fact that I believed it is valid, but not the belief.

 

The validity of a belief is a matter a the context of its service to the one who uses it. The criteria YOU set forth reflect you own beliefs and goals. If what serves another does not serve you, it does not mean you have invalidated it in your brother, or that your brother is invalidated by his choosing it.

If you would have freedom to uncover the truth of your living and being, then by allowing others to find theirs will you advance more surely.

If you want to define and determine reality so as to be valid at the cost of another's invalidity, you will only seed conflict and define yourself valid in opposition.

You have a sense that beliefs can be stepping stones and give off a sense that you are beyond all childish need for belief in external forms of support for the sense of identity currently active within your life.

It is not that you are invalidated by seeking to be right over and against another's wrong - but that this psychological defence is part of a hidden 'belief' in magic.

The disregard of the mind by scientific orthodoxy is a self-inflicted blindness. Opening a greater perspective is generally a result of 'loving thine enemy' in some sense of a shift of insight to that one is encountering one's own unconscious reflections and projections - but in terms designed to remain 'hidden' unrecognised and justly hated.

Truth is already. In seeking to create definitions - as if its 'discovery' in definition is testament to self - and validation of self, we persist an invalidity of identification. And such a sense of self-defensiveness will interpret all things in a manner that inhibits a unified perspective.

Relious dumbasses v smarter atheists?

Independent.co.uk article:

Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, according to analysis of scores of scientific studies stretching back over decades.

Study found 'a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity' in 53 out of 63 studies.

Scientosity?
I am not religious in the sense of social organisation or
identification - but I am in the sense of Unified Intelligence and I don't need a study to tell you that scientosity has defined intelligence in such a way as to bring mankind to the brink of destruction.
To be sure science CAN become whole again - so it is a particular kind of mentality that splits off and manipulates in the name of science, just as it did with religion.
Clever thinking and a masked intent to exploit and manipulate is called upon to pretend to explain the unexplainable or seek to justify the unjustifiable, but a clear discernment can see through complex financial packages without having to open them.
The mesmeric unconsciousness of ignorance is maintained by belief. Only waking up to observe your experience is your beliefs allows the nature
of mind to be appreciated and more consciously cooperated with.
Honesty doesn't need to be clever to tune in to discern and address a need - but in a system designed to undermine trust and replace it with mechanical process, honest people are seen as stupid, ignorant and
heretical. (Keep it hidden or you get targeted!)
Mechanical mind doesn't SEE anything real - it only
'sees' its programming as if it were real. Wake up and smell the roses!
Intelligence is not unlike 'in the Cloud'. Draw what you need for what you need as you need it.
The mind that draws a thick black line around itself
also thinks that it possesses life and intelligence as a power in itself. There's no lack of intelligence - but look at the use to which you put your mind and see that it is being used to limit, in order to serve a wish to have this experience (whatever it seems to be). So focused on the virtual reality of your own mind that you are unaware in
the main of all the complexity that is providing this experience. Not unlike the apparently simple screen in front of you now.
'Reality' as believed is manufactured - what then IS Real?
Put aside or pause the manufacturing machine of mental definition, judgement and belief and simply Be receptive.
God
is not secret. It is your wish to be a power unto yourself that demands to be kept secret, where love cannot enter - and so redefines and 'discovers' reality in its own image - as a polarized, fragmented and conflicting experience that demands defence and control in reaction to its own unrecognized reflection!
The play out of 'science and religion' as if actually separate or at war is just a game of ideas. All
facets of our being are in unified concert. They only seems like they war because of a secret intent to play the game of divide and rule.

- - -
Extra responses to other comments:

To one who said:

If someone promised you eternal life, the protection of a loving super being, a feeling of moral righteousness, a purpose for living, answers to all the big questions, and a rule book for achieving the pinnacle of human potential… and all in exchange for having faith in something that wasn’t in any way proven, would you be suspicious?

 I responded:

Absolutely!
Your list is mixed up though.
Whenever true inspiration, intuition, recognition etc open in the human realm, the mind that manipulates it for its own ends steps in to usurp it. This doesn't mean that truth is corrupted but that the forms associated with it become associated with a manipulative intent.
The key is opening truth in one' own heart. The forces arrayed to prevent you from uncovering this are layers and layers of conditioning such that everything is used to maintain the box in which you think you think.
Not merely religion. Everything.
Looking at what is wrong with others is one of the decoys. Seeming to be more aware than the ignorant is one of the decoys.
The world-mind does what it does. It isn't as it seems. The filters and defences make communication almost impossible. What can be said in such limited concepts that is not rendered meaningless or misinterpreted to reinforce the defences?
As long as one seeks for oneself alone one is under a spell, a deceit, a manipulative intent. It is that distortion which pervades your list.
Your list would pass as 'temptation' because it misses the foundation, which is nothing to do with 'getting' it for oneself excepting this:
If you accept love for yourself it will share out to others and your world. In its SHARING is the recognition of Eternity. Of an edgeless and timeless being that is Always (here) - but completely disregarded by a consciousness engaged in its reflected distortions.
People who try to sell or convince are trying to eradicate their doubt. Everyone is free to choose what they think and therefore experience. And to learn and grow from cosequences.

Now I might say that the promise of eternal life is always already in your heart and is the link to a God that can never be broken - that could not be separated from no matter what you did or didn't do in your thought and its experience.
But because the sense of a separate one has meaning for you, you imagine a god to be a Super Separate One - which is both absurd and terrifying depending whether it is given time of mind. So I stand with you in not signing up for it.

Love - can it be proven?
Try letting someone else be altogether worthy of your attention. Overlook the reasons to withdraw or criticise or cut across. Go for it!
This uncovers your own worth to you as well as affirming the worth of another.
Of course it is a self fulfilling loop - just as is the refusal to love.
Mind Itself doesn't interfere with what is shared. Because you are it! You may seem to interfere with mind and so seem to be a something else in your own right - that CAN be interfered with! But the interference is local to what now seems to be your own private mind. Your own polarised experience. Fun eh?
Well apart from the loss of unified perspective...
One can also see it as like the sleeping princess who is encircled with defences that keep out all but the true kiss that wakens. What set that up? An excluded or rejected part of the whole.
What I am pointing to is not in the world - but in an aspect of our life that is before or beneath the world. The consciousness that is the inward aspect of what seems an outward event.

- - -

Zachariah said (to a women who shared that she felt a love in her life through her Catholic faith and quoted the saying of Jesus - to be as little children):
      
Your Catholic upbringing has indoctrinated you. Therein lies the issue because you will in all likelihood indoctrinate your children into Catholicism as well. Spreading ignorance and misinformation is wrong. Especially the mantra of the Catholic church which actively keeps hundreds of millions of women in poverty all around the world!       

I said:      
Wow!
So there's a total disregard for someone who is willing to communicate with you - and the seeds of a 'holy war' to stamp out evil indoctrinations and release hundreds of millions from an evil power that they have no choice in being subjugated by. Thank God for drones and microchip implants and the New World Order - then we can clean up this mess! (joke)

Everyone is subject to personal and family and cultural influence and in some way adopted it as what worked at the time out of what was available.
If you get to know anyone rather than identify in the mask, I feel you will discover they are far richer and more interesting than all this opinionating. Anyone who truly feels love in their life has a capacity for listening and discerning that grows by living it. We outgrow much of what once served and sometimes leave it behind and other times appreciate it in fresh and new ways.
Awakening life more abundant - right in the midst of a world that seems to be in darkness and conflict is like swapping a grievance for a blessing.
The outer forms shall fall away and willingness shine forth to know itself one in all.

- - -

John Goatbirth said−
The problem with that is; How do you disprove something that doesn't exist? The religious brigade claim this "god" is there yet they have no evidence to support it. Atheists claim the god isn't there - the continued absence of this individual, I'd say, is a pretty good proof. Scientific studies, such as the ones which display prayer to do absolutely nothing, help back that up. Not that indoctrinated religious sorts would ever be able to see it this way. And scientific advancements have ridiculed religious claims. Of course you still get idiots saying, "Ah, evolution, so that proves how amazing god is!" as they cling desperately to the reigns of their moronic fallacy.

Anyway, I believe in Santa. He is real.

I responded:
You seem pretty good proof of God to me - why get complicated?

But, the presumption that God is a separate entity is a reflection of the
presumption you are a separate entity. I have no such presumption and
appreciate the toppling of an idol - but don't share faith in human
rationality which seems employed more to justify and serve this so
called separate entity in its private agendas and self presentations and
not an expression of true Reason at all.

Santa may actually be Satan; a love of form over true content. To take the forms of things from their true context and redefine with fantasy associations for the sake of a private gratification.

The word 'God' is just a pointer to an unspeakable and undefinable Presence in which separation and division is not.

The concepts of God are very very many. Even where many apparently believe
in God there is division - so mere belief is not meaningful unless it has realisation and living practice.

Kindness is appropriate to those of a kind - who don't seek difference and division and extend honour and compassion because they recognize themselves in the other in some sense.

If those who live the willingness of such a love do or don't associate or profess any particular brand of religion or spirituality - so what?

The heart has not a language of articulation or currency in a society that believes its own rationalisations of autonomy and control because honesty is the first casualty of such war - and it is war because it seeks power over life.

Merely following the forms of accepted respectability whether religious or
atheistic is simply aligning with the apparent power of the day.

There is no need to prove or disprove God - is there? There is no need to
engage in one-upmanship or personal or scientific superiority over
others - is there?

There is no need to have and defend an opinion or point of view - is there?

Underneath any kind of presentation about anything one will feel where it is
coming from. If it has integrity one can feel it - whether it expresses
in terms one agrees with or not.

What is integrity - it is not bluster and deceit but a congruency of thought and word and deed.

The attempt to seem to have it means that people adopt and dress up in all kinds of presentations - without real substance.

Few leave the apparent safety and comfort of a herd-like huddle to actually
explore or uncover for themselves - because it always means stepping
outside the definitions and conformities of one's peer group or upbringing.

The need for truth doesn't rise in those who get comfortable in a world of distraction. It arises in the loss of the capacity to engage or maintain such a 'life'. Opening to honesty isn't so that one can then make a stick and hit people with or set up a scam - but people do that with or without any relationship to honesty or pathsof discovery because of the urge to regain some sort of power or status from a sense of shame and a coating of arrogance.

You simply seek the witnesses to what you have already decided to believe. To accept a sense of unalloyed worth will surely shift your evidence gathering. Its all here to be uncovered if you want it.

- - -
Panto:

capa75 said:
I am an atheist, though I did for a while believe in Santa and Rudolf, let's get that clear now, and I have been shot at, and it did not enter my head at the time to " suddenly" believe.

I responded:

Oh No You're Not! (Panto mode)
Because you believed, it did not enter your head to suddenly leave.
Adding things to our self seems to be how we enter and adapt to the world. People try things on and some fit or stick.
When this self is recognized to be the mask and not the real you - then a different purpose awakens. I don't think that what we think we believe or present as our identity counts for much - it is what we demonstrate in our relationships and our living that communicates what we actually believe - even if we never have a label for it.
Santa knocked Jesus out from Christmas - ironic anagram there. Life doesn't fit or measure into little boxes but presentations can masquerade as presence in a panto - and the audience can join in without leaving their seat.
The control mentality has to learn to manipulate attention in order to seem to be needed and effective.
Are we ever really in control?
It's another component of the make believe. Maybe the issue is more about a quality of joy, peace and a truly shared sense of life. If our imagination serves to allow it - IT wakes up to its own value and is not contained in the means by which it was made welcome.
If a make-believe of Christmas giving is incarnated with an actual willingness to give - not just stuff, but real appreciation and attention then something true is shared through the props. Why seek truth in the world! There is none in the props of themselves.

In My Father's House...

A priest who has allowed Muslims to pray in his church has told how he has been hit by a barrage of abuse by internet 'trolls'.


Any identification can be employed by the mentality of hate, which may appeal to the forms and names of love - but has no love and knows not love.

A nominal Christian or Muslim is not what it professes just because of external assertions, dress code or tribal loyalties. If true religion is to be nurtured in our world, that truly joins us with Life, with our brother/sister and with living world, then it needs to grow out of NOT using belief as a weapon of division.

What we truly believe is witnessed by its fruits. As our perception, our presence, our actions and our compassion. If we live love - it doesn't matter by what means we came to let love into our heart. It's nobody's business to dictate their path upon another!
Loving IS true religion - and love doesn't arise from selfishness no matter how forcefully asserted.
The mentality of hate, 'loves' to hate because it sees separation as salvation. And hates to love, for it sees love as loss of self. It finds the ways to hate that justify itself to itself and fails to recognize love even when it is in their midst.

Jesus was not a Christian, nor Mohammed a Muslim. Both truly loved, and expressed such love in inspiring compassionate ways.

Fear is not a sane foundation for life. A willingness to trust the impulse of love is how we invite Christ in, whether we care to use such a term or not.

To one who sarcastically noted Christians failure to follow their own teachings:
A good point here - but having pointed to the failings of others, are you now better? - or indeed a true follower of the above?

Christian failure ought to generate a radical re-evaluation and in some I am sure it does.
Others make a virtue of being suffering sinners and most everyone sighs and accepts the 'human condition' and makes token gestures.

The nature of Messengers who inspire is that they embody what they speak, and communicate it on levels that transcend mere information. Holiness is usually for the dead because those identified in partial hypocrisy cant abide it while those who believe their own mind cant even see it. But Sanctity belongs to life; it is we who disinherit ourselves, not God.

Teaching that awakens and serves a life lived in love instead of fear, tends to be subverted to worldly goals, becoming identity in the world rather than a transcendence of loving - even while apparently in it.

To any mind identified exclusively with the passing show, unconditional love must seem a superhuman sacrifice, and Jesus is accorded a specialness that effectively separates him from us as a brother.

But a mentality of control is rooted in fear, and this is what Jesus taught freedom FROM. Love IS spontaneous to a freedom from fear, NOT a weapon against it. But an institutional church used religion as its control mechanism and reversed the core teaching by intervening between a man and his true heart's knowing. Break the bounds!

Said one:
Funny thing is all Abrahamic religions worship the same guy.
Retorted another:
Funny thing is you are wrong.Allah is not God.It is a semi pagan deity known in Arabia before Mohammad and elevated by him to the level of the Jewish Yahvey,Jehova.Even a cursory study of the qua'ran would show the reader how different God is to allah.

The first thing to do in order to have a seeming anti-God is to make a definition of God and worship IT instead of God.
Now a definition is a thought and God is not limited by thought - so you have a conflict if you want to have your selfconcept AND true Life.
Choosing to worship an imaged definition, cuts off the feeling of true Life. Kicked out of Paradise!
Life now appears polarized between Good and evil. The Good is what your definition of God allows you, and evil is what seems to threaten your salvation, which is misplaced in the idol, and is being defended against True God. Jesus' parable of the tenant farmers illustrates.
There's only God, and all that says different is what our minds make up and identify for or against.
YHWH or Yahweh has been rendered as "I Am That I Am"
But however the Name of God is written, spoken (or refrained from being written and spoken), it is both name AND nature - and never to be used casually - in vanity or carelessness.
But it is used without any sense of Only True Being and as a word or thing in a world of things it can be fought over and used to justify division.
The mind that does not stop at the thought of God is a mind that has forgot what it is to Be - lost in a distraction of its own thinking.

Satan? Deception, mind-stories and true intimacy

I chanced on this page when checking a bit on the origins of Lucifer and Satan. I always feel a quality I can relate with in a love of truth, so in that sense communication embodies a truth that cannot be itself spoken. Call it ‘one-mindedness’ or ‘of one kind’ or don’t call it anything. But this living context that we call ‘mind’ is not at all identical to anything that we think or define and accept it to be – yet it is the underlying truth in which stories in mind, belief and all experience are ‘played out’. Inseparably.

That the mind can deceive and be deceived is not in question, but the mind that can deceive and be deceived is NOT the mind beneath the stories of self and world. That true mind which I will now call Mind is the truth in which experience is had, indulged in or transcended – even if the experience is an effect using an imagination as a lens over truth.

Our stories are both personal and cultural, and constitute our self definitions and justifications in the context of an intolerable or denied sense of being. This may not be obvious because we WANT our stories to save or protect or mitigate our sense of dissonance, and so our human consciousness is fitted to look out through the lens of our stories rather than look at the filters of belief themselves.

There is a movement in Mind that is self-aware, it is inherent or innate to what Mind is. "Know Thyself", is an alpha and omega – (as well as the truth all the while one seems to know a something ‘else’).

Yet while an active preference for ‘knowing’ our own story prevails over knowing directly, we give ourselves an experience that ‘shares’ the sense of self that is gotten in stories. I say ‘shares’ because mutual agreement (or indeed interlocking shadow projections of mutual disagreement) do not constitute a true intimacy – but rather, it validates a sense of separated self by its thoughts – which is what maintains a virtual sense of self – as our ego or self image.

The capacity to ‘live’ in or through our stories; our ego, uses a defining and judging aspect of our mind. This capacity is limited, no matter how much force is brought to bear or how ingeniously we package and present a lack of real presence as if it were truly meaningful.

Self awareness – is simply noticing. And no matter how ingenious our defences are for maintaining our mind-in story, there are constant breaches through which we notice… that which undermines or fails to support our story-self. And the complexity and speed in which a protection of mind-in story works to deny, distract and reconfigure itself so as to appear continuous and real is witness to the power of Mind, even in the self-limiting act of asserting one’s own story-experience as true (For this inherently denies or discards a direct awareness of the true nature of Mind).

Now, I didn’t know what I was going to write when I started, but I see an attempt to sketch something that can serve awakening to an activity we are humanly and culturally disposed to render unconscious. To put 'out of mind', and also to awaken to and as the innocence and natural curiosity and delight of a direct relationship in and as an expression of Mind; an unselfconscious love.

We find a movement in our being that delights in stories, and we know we can enjoy them without mistaking them for reality, for they can reflect the innate qualities of Mind as well as the imagined attributes of a ‘free will’. But mind can also be conditioned, such as to program itself by its own choices, and become so engaged and identified in its story, that it becomes self destructive in guilt and via fear. A sense of invalidity and worthlessness of self that militantly denies love welcome and substitutes with token acts or sacrifices that are ‘loving’ in order to get.

Waking up, healing, reintegrating – these terms point to a release from a deception that is ultimately self-illusion – no matter how the story tells it. This is Good News, though we rarely want to hear it.

The purpose of the stories of the ego is in exploring and experiencing a sense of PERSONAL creation. It was an innocent act by which we frightened ourselves and became caught up in our own defences so as to commit to a false or mistaken sense of our self. All that came from that has never left its starting point.

Yet within our stories – personal and cultural – is the penetration of the movement of healing or awakening – and this is the purpose that guides the mind that thinks its name or nature is legion, to calm, to listen, to discern and to trust a true relationship in which its own true nature reveals itself in unified expression.

All things serve the purpose we are actively holding in our heart (regardless of the stories in our head). The wish to personally determine what is true established the mind or purpose of division and judgement; the mind of control. To every action there is reaction. If we make this mind real to us then we suffer its effects likewise!

Unified action is a movement of wholeness and not an imposed partiality. This is beyond concept but not beyond witnessing. We may uncover a willingness to pause, to truly or directly listen or notice, and to discern – that is – to FEEL the qualities that are present. In recognition of a reintegrated being we have a basis to trust the movement that is NOT the ‘will to control’ or prevail, but is the feeling of life in unified expression.

This gives embodiment to that which is felt as an expression of a truly shared worth and integrity of being.

The religious or spiritual urge at its root is the intuition of truth and not the attempt to define, map, explain or manipulate – but its spark is quickly covered in attempts to weave it into our story, to use it for our ‘selves’, where the forms originally associated with joy may become weapons or instruments of ‘righteous’ war, and slavery of thought. Truth is not reducible to forms - even 'holy forms' are reflections and expression of what is beneath form. In this sense 'Bible' (to one who receives guidance and illumination from it), would mean the direct communication of God to man - but it isn't a form in its own sake but a living covenant or relationship in the truth of the heart in which the one that thinks itself 'man' is restored to its True Relationship as God's Expression, of a kind with all that lives and is. This cannot be used in the world as a manipulative sense but that such relationship is lost to a world of form given meanings, which is our freedom to engage but not our true fulfilment.

How to reach the mind of those who love to hate? Or those who mistake abject slavery for freedom and security? One cannot speak to that which cannot hear. But in every encounter, we can desist from joining with it and validating it in our own mind – such as the grace of noticing and true desire brings. Judgement always rejects and withdraws, but the recognition of our own mind where we saw it as another allows healing of one's own mind - which naturally extends as invitation and gift to the other or the situation - to the degree their willingness accepts.

Nothing I have said here requires belief, but it may call for suspending a believing AGAINST. The power of the mind is witnessed in every experience and yet is invisible to those who know not what they do. It is not a mind of control that judges and lords it over our being – unless you establish that measure – and even then, only in your own mind-made experience - with those you can draw into collusion.

The prodigal does not come home to a trial and punishment – but to a True Remembrance – regardless of anything that he thought he thought or did. But ‘coming Home’ is precipitated by a rude or discomfiting awakening to a bankruptcy of self, through which the intuition of Life stirs and is given welcome, such as to be turned in purpose from demanding self-will to a willingness to truly serve. In the expression of this purpose is the servant replaced with the Original Nature; “My Son”.

I never did get to write about the fear of our own thought that became personified in stories of awakening as the deceiver – and then became a basis for stories of control.

I did notice that Santa is an anagram of Satan. Pretty much knocked the Divine Birth (the thirst for truth and its welcome), from Christmas.

We personify aspects of mind – by identifying with or rejecting, but they never in fact ever, leave the mind except in story. Release the guilt we ‘put out’ by asking truly within this very moment. Otherwise we seed and feed the very thing we hate, unknowing.
But what do we really hate? And is hating it actually helpful? Is this what we truly want?

One doesn’t have to believe in God to be healed, but one does have to put behind the wish the deceive oneself. Mind is never really locked or fixed but that belief has set it so, and beliefs can be changed or released. What we give our attention to is the chooser of experience and the layers of beliefs that filter and condition this can be released into a direct trust that brings forth a different experience – because it is of a different foundation and purpose.

Thankyou for your attention.