One has to change their thoughts to entertain the thought of something new. There are thoughts that take the mind inward to source and then there are thoughts that take the mind outward trailing belief. Often one changes one belief for another and in their exuberance are convinced they can change the world with their discoveries of their new idea or thought.

A new religion, a new concept of God or a new way to spell God often entertains the mind because it has something new to think about but the new thought is not necessarily at deeper levels of expanded thought, just an expansion of belief or an enlarging of the box.
God being a NO thing or nothing or a thing is still a description of an idea or a concept.
The closer one gets to letting go of concepts the closer one gets to being unattached to the idea that they can change anyone of give anyone anything.
Motivated by the Ego, you can be convinced there are those who need to see God in a different light and you may preach your own belief, spell God differently or explain your experience of God so that others can follow, or substantiate, your own experience.
Once one has an experience of life being projected outward from the stillness that is the Self then the ego witnesses life and surrenders thought feeling and action to the stillness as it moves outward into manifestation. The witnesser becomes surrendered to the stillness which is often called the Self.


Expectations are identifications and anchors in the manifest, put in particular boxes which are building and maintaining the Box of Belief. As you identify another so will you react accordingly and identify yourself. This is projection and attachment to projection.


The unmanifest unseen one is by tradition of thought and teaching considered male, while the manifest changing aspects of creation represents the female making the One hemaphrodite or the One God including the unseen and the seen. Uniting them as one. The vertical staff of the cross represents the stable aspect of the unmanifest, the male part of the one, while the female moves outward from the unmanifest horizontally, the horizontal part of the cross.

So what has changed in the identification of yourself as being a minister for God. At 17 you wondered, and now do you still wonder or have you stilled your mind into your present containment of thoughts accumulated over the years through expanding experience?
Are you still wondering or has your mind become complacent in a new belief?
Has your mind anchored itself in belief or is it stilled inbetween belief?
If you believe in anyone and respond to them according to your belief in them then you must obviously know that they are predisposed to their belief in God no matter how you spell it.
You can explain your belief but the word is already established in their mind as associated with their own internal programs.
Im sure you've seen the bit where you can spell words incorrectly, rearranging letters in the words in a sentence but the mind often overlooks the spelling and absorbs the words according to their internal programs of word association.
Such is the futility of projecting change in anyone who hasn't made an internal shift leaving internal programs behind to expand the awareness to something greater.

Through your own experience I'm sure you have seen by asking why, you yourself have opened yourself to more understanding, but have you simply rearranged your attachment to the belief in ignorance by separating yourself from it to look upon others as being ignorant or have you just become expanded in your ignorance? By responding only to dialogue have you limited yourself to speaking when you identify with the manifest and your role or have you surrendered your role and give of yourself according to spirit and the compassion of bringing light into darkness, not through thought but through surrender?

What you are convinced of in Jesus' study in his early years, was it the understanding of mind association and the ability to understand the attachment and judgment of identity created by ego or was it the learning of his own Union?
I'm not so sure he learned how to be God as how everyone got stuck in being something other, or how to see through the eyes of ignorance so to gain the experience of compassion in terms of humanity so that they might understand him rather than he to necessarily need to understand them to gain something in his own divinity.
I think That particular entity had surpassed that level of reality long before this planet and human presence was ever introduced into this part of the universe.

I think humanity is still very much stuck in their own new found beliefs of non belief and experiences of God in being NOthing and everything.

I think you should give everything that you think you know to God in whatever spelling you desire and start completely new, from a place of not knowing anything.
I think that is the only way you may begin to understand what you've done to yourself over the years and how you limit God to your own experience, and continue to limit God by insisting on identifying with the way you spell God by putting a slash through the O in the word God.

Although I agree that a viable approach is one of starting from a place of noknowing anything, this would be considerably difficult to achieve. The means of identification with any <deity> is usually one of indoctrination.

Culture, both you and Joesus offer the kind of dialogue which I appreciate, even when I find myself not understanding what is meant, or at odds with what I understand.


Keep in mind that what I offer is never meant to be a fixed dogma from me--one received as if by divine revelation. It is merely my opinion at this point. I hope I shall always be open enough not to allow myself to be trapped in my own ego. I am always open to being corrected.

BTW, Joesus, and Culture, in a few sentences, please summarize your theology for us? My basic theology is: GOD is love.

[quote name='Lindsay' date='Aug 24, 12:30 PM' post='68843']
[/quote] Culture, both you and Joesus offer the kind of dialogue which I appreciate, even when I find myself not understanding what is meant, or at odds with what I understand.


Keep in mind that what I offer is never meant to be a fixed dogma from me--one received as if by divine revelation. It is merely my opinion at this point. I hope I shall always be open enough not to allow myself to be trapped in my own ego. I am always open to being corrected.

BTW, Joesus, and Culture, in a few sentences, please summarize your theology for us? My basic theology is: GOD is love.
[/quote]

An interesting question. I am more of a logos individual and have not felt any reason to prefix this with 'theos'
However if really pressed it would be negative theology, this only because of spending two years as a monk.

Ha! Ha! That's what you get for over-estimating a simple man such as myself!

You and John 1:1-18? where John writes "In the beginning was the word (logos)..." Now give us a little more of what you mean by "logos individual". How close is this to Buddhism, which I understand is non-theistic. That is, in the sense that Buddhism does not rquire belief in a personal god.

I will discuss your comments in a new thread on INVENTING GOD--not to be confused with creating GOD.

I don't recommend starting from a place you can't grasp but moving towards it from a place you are at.
Beliefs aren't inherent, nor is the identification of <deity>. The innocent are often confused by those who manage to lead thought from intuition and communion on a level that is beyond identity to conform with the majority in their projections and belief.
One must return their senses to the subtle rather than continue to move outward away from them.


Love is the ultimate support system of the manifest in whatever form it is interpreted.
You mentioned that evil is the good in evolution, but evil exists only in the presence of Good because of the dual nature of indentification with opposites.
Theology isn't necessary. Its often a system of measure to weigh ones thoughts in the recognition or identification of good and evil or righteousness and non righteousness.

I heartily agree. Joesus, what is your concept of love? How do you describe it? Are you familiar with the following words: eros, philia and agape? And how they differ from one another?

For the record, I am always super cautious when someone warns me: "I'm a simple man..." However, I too agree that "reaon and love" when used, sincerely, can be good guides.

In reference to God, Love is without conditions. It supports all conditions and prepares the way for desire and fulfillment of desire, as well as duality in the perception of failure and non achievement, separation and suffering.


Only in reference to how the dictionary defines them. They are not words that I use or have used.

Do you seek to find yourself in words that define you or the experience of you?

I hope not...but being human, we sometimes have to use words, do we not?

The Greek language, used in the New Testament, was more precise in its use of the word love. The NT writers were familiar with the fact that the ancients used 'eros' to refer to sensual love--what we call erotic love. They used 'philia' to refer to friendship. We have in word like philosophy, philadelphia, philantrophy... However, when they want to refer to love, without conditions, they used 'agape'--respect even for those not easy to like. It is used 140 times in the NT.

I'm not questioning the words you use or the use of words it was a simple question.

You earlier said something about satisfaction being gained by surrounding yourself with like minded individuals and the association of expanding your ideals in a supportive environment.
Does this feeling create the idea that your ideas have worth?
Does word association and their use create an experience of yourself that is satisfying and do you seek to perpetuate the ongoing experience of satisfaction.
Are you satisfied with yourself and your life regardless of what others think of you?

Much of the time, but I always respect for what others, especially others who are loving and wise, think.