Pantheism.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JosephineBloggs

All I can remember about the bible quote, was that Jesus embarrassed someone, or a group. I thought it had something to do with a shirt off his or their back. Not literally, it was just an idea that would cause embarrassment if they were in front of everyone with no shirt. Sorry, that's all I've got atm, hopefully it will come back to me. I've already put a few phrases into the search engine, not found it so far. You've quoted it in the past to justify some of your harsher lessons.

Here is a link to the post where I shared a footnote from my treatise where I talked about the fact that men in Jesus's culture wore nothing under their 'shirts' which were of the 'long' to their knees kind - hence if they took off their shirt they would be naked: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...#post1 861215

Originally Posted by JosephineBloggs

This issue of someone losing their soul isn't something that makes sense to me. One lifetime of living a certain way, however lived, I just don't think it would cause that. Now, maybe we could look at it that their soul didn't develop very much in that one lifetime. Again, makes little difference. The soul is eternal. Where's the rush

Jesus's statement were highly 'condensed' - he was talking at a time (like now!) when destinies determined by choices made over the course of many lifetimes were being 'sealed'. Here is the post which includes the parts of my treatise where I talk about that:
http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...#post178 4600

Originally Posted by JosephineBloggs

Nothing thrives due to cruelty. Whether it be people or animals. Although, I know suffering can teach. I think cruelty brings people down, whereas lovingkindness lifts them up. If a person is already suffering because they haven't lovingkindness in their life. No amount of extra cruelty on top of that is going to help imo. If a person is given lovingkindness. Surely that will help lift them out of suffering. I know you have a different idea that cruel to be kind works. As I said before. Does it really. Have you seen this work?

What Elizabeth Haich is talking about is "tough love" 'cruelty' - yes, as many alcoholics and spoiled brat children who (only) 'woke up' to the need for them to assume a greater degree of personal responsibility after having been will testify, it can work (more so than the kind of 'kindness' which reinforces their 'habits' and enables them to continue their 'dereliction'), albeit because of people's recalcitrance it doesn't always work - I think that sometimes it only 'works' 'after the fact', in the context of their next life, i.e. after they have a smacking themselves on the head post-life "I could have had a V8!" kind of realization. You've heard of souls engaging in post-life 'reviews', I assume.

Of course, harshly 'jerking the collar' of a kid who can't (yet!) tie his shoelaces is not 'good' 'parenting'. Neither is 'indulging' a 'kid' who can but doesn't in the 'name' of 'kindness'. The latter presently applies to huge segments of 'humanity' which continue to rape and ravish aspects of our natural and social ecosystems as well as 'kindly' 'indulge' and 'ignore' others who also parasitically do so. Look at all the genteel 'stockholders' around you! The same applies to 'stockholders' in various personal-bliss/salvation oriented religious 'traditions' which are now 'behind the times' in terms of holding themselves and their 'fellow' believers socially and environmentally accountable, IMO.

[JosephineB]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Here is a link to the post where I shared a footnote from my treatise where I talked about the fact that men in Jesus's culture wore nothing under their 'shirts' which were of the 'long' to their knees kind - hence if they took off their shirt they would be naked: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...#post1 861215

Yes, that's the one I read of yours. Thanks for finding it. My view on what Jesus is saying re turn the other cheek, matches what Martin Luther King Jr says about loving your enemies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fs8vSsJg-A On a side note: I think it was coats not shirts so they wouldn't be naked.

Jesus's statement were highly 'condensed' - he was talking at a time (like now!) when destinies determined by choices made over the course of many lifetimes were being 'sealed'. Here is the post which includes the parts of my treatise where I talk about that:
http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...#post178 4600

“Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Matthew 16:25-26)

My initial thoughts on this are, if we live our life only reacting through the ego. Not being in touch with our soul. ie lost. When he says "my sake", meaning the higher self/soul/Christ essence.

What Elizabeth Haich is talking about is "tough love" 'cruelty' - yes, as many alcoholics and spoiled brat children who (only) 'woke up' to the need for them to assume a greater degree of personal responsibility after having been will testify, it can work (more so than the kind of 'kindness' which reinforces their 'habits' and enables them to continue their 'dereliction'), albeit because of people's recalcitrance it doesn't always work - I think that sometimes it only 'works' 'after the fact', in the context of their next life, i.e. after they have a smacking themselves on the head post-life "I could have had a V8!" kind of realization. You've heard of souls engaging in post-life 'reviews', I assume.

Of course, harshly 'jerking the collar' of a kid who can't (yet!) tie his shoelaces is not 'good' 'parenting'. Neither is 'indulging' a 'kid' who can but doesn't in the 'name' of 'kindness'. The latter presently applies to huge segments of 'humanity' which continue to rape and ravish aspects of our natural and social ecosystems as well as 'kindly' 'indulge' and 'ignore' others who also parasitically do so. Look at all the genteel 'stockholders' around you! The same applies to 'stockholders' in various personal-bliss/salvation oriented religious 'traditions' which are now 'behind the times' in terms of holding themselves and their 'fellow' believers socially and environmentally accountable, IMO.

Of course every circumstance is different. But cruel to be kind is more letting people get on with it I think, to figure things out for themselves. Yes, offer support/advice if asked, and most importantly lovingkindness. But at the end of the day they'll have to be left on their own. Shouting from the side lines "do it like this", "don't do it like that", or "that's stupid", I don't think helps.

Phew! Stressed me out a bit that David. All that studying!

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JosephineBloggs

Yes, that's the one I read of yours. Thanks for finding it. My view on what Jesus is saying re turn the other cheek, matches what Martin Luther King Jr says about loving your enemies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fs8vSsJg-A On a side note: I think it was coats not shirts so they wouldn't be naked.

The coats were worn over the shirts. Jesus was suggesting how people could 'protest' when they were sued for non-payment of rent and their landlord were awarded their 'coats' by the courts. He was saying, 'Heck, you practically have nothing left, so why not just take off and give them you 'shirts' as well - IOW, just 'flash' 'em!

Originally Posted by JosephineBloggs

“Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Matthew 16:25-26)

My initial thoughts on this are, if we live our life only reacting through the ego. Not being in touch with our soul. ie lost. When he says "my sake", meaning the higher self/soul/Christ essence.

That interpretation also fits. The thesis I present in my treatise, is much more 'radical' ('extreme?) than that "losing touch for a 'while'" possibility, however. I logically (I think) argue that one can/may literally 'lose' one's 'life' as a soul, that one may literally cease to exist as a soul, in which case the mental-and-spiritual components of one's soul will be recycled and become part of other souls' beingnesses, and so no longer be 'coherent' in reincarnational terms.

Originally Posted by JosephineBloggs

Of course every circumstance is different. But cruel to be kind is more letting people get on with it I think, to figure things out for themselves. Yes, offer support/advice if asked, and most importantly lovingkindness. But at the end of the day they'll have to be left on their own. Shouting from the side lines "do it like this", "don't do it like that", or "that's stupid", I don't think helps.

Aye to every 'circumstance' being different! MLK was very adroit in dealing with his 'circumstance', IMO. But let me ask you, 'kind' to whom? I am not just "shouting", and neither am I doing what I am dong from the "sidelines". As the saying goes, "ya gotta be 'in it' to 'win it'." I think that just "letting people get on with figuring things out for themselves" (most people just want to continue to believe, think, feel and do what they already do) will just result in more of the 'same', I am waging a campaign of ideas hoping to provoke/stimulate change - using a variety of tactics to 'get' people's attention - poking at and hoping to pop entrenched logic-bubbles, or at least the logic bubbles of other (potentially less 'committed' to said kinds of logic) peeps who are 'witnessing' the 'contest', This is my overarching strategy. I think this is what Jesus was doing when he 'took on' the 'Scribes and Pharisees' for instance. I seriously doubt he imagined that they would 'hear' and 'listen' to him. Nicodemus was a very rare exception.

Originally Posted by JosephineBloggs

Phew! Stressed me out a bit that David. All that studying!

I very much appreciate and find both the intensity and sincerity of your engagement very heart-warming and hope-restoring, Jo.

And yes, in case this crosses your or others' mind as a question, I think (and so proclaim) that I am truly a man after Jesus's 'heart'. P.S. 'Loving' one's 'Enemies' is beside the (main!) point, which is about 'loving' Life Itself and so 'exposing' as many as possible to what I think are 'key' differences between functional (in terms of leading to 'greater' Life) and dysfuncational truth. Playing forum ping-pong with what you think in the same regard serves such purpose - so this is a BIG 'thank you'!

[JosephineB]

Originally Posted by davidsun

The coats were worn over the shirts. Jesus was suggesting how people could 'protest' when they were sued for non-payment of rent and their landlord were awarded their 'coats' by the courts. He was saying, 'Heck, you practically have nothing left, so why not just take off and give them you 'shirts' as well - IOW, just 'flash' 'em!


That interpretation also fits. The thesis I present in my treatise, is much more 'radical' ('extreme?) than that "losing touch for a 'while'" possibility, however. I logically (I think) argue that one can/may literally 'lose' one's 'life' as a soul, that one may literally cease to exist as a soul, in which case the mental-and-spiritual components of one's soul will be recycled and become part of other souls' beingnesses, and so no longer be 'coherent' in reincarnational terms.


Aye to every 'circumstance' being different! MLK was very adroit in dealing with his 'circumstance', IMO. But let me ask you, 'kind' to whom? I am not just "shouting", and neither am I doing what I am dong from the "sidelines". As the saying goes, "ya gotta be 'in it' to 'win it'." I think that just "letting people get on with figuring things out for themselves" (most people just want to continue to believe, think, feel and do what they already do) will just result in more of the 'same', I am waging a campaign of ideas hoping to provoke/stimulate change - using a variety of tactics to 'get' people's attention - poking at and hoping to pop entrenched logic-bubbles, or at least the logic bubbles of other (potentially less 'committed' to said kinds of logic) peeps who are 'witnessing' the 'contest', This is my overarching strategy. I think this is what Jesus was doing when he 'took on' the 'Scribes and Pharisees' for instance. I seriously doubt he imagined that they would 'hear' and 'listen' to him. Nicodemus was a very rare exception.


I very much appreciate and find both the intensity and sincerity of your engagement very heart-warming and hope-restoring, Jo.

And yes, in case this crosses your or others' mind as a question, I think (and so proclaim) that I am truly a man after Jesus's 'heart'. P.S. 'Loving' one's 'Enemies' is beside the (main!) point, which is about 'loving' Life Itself and so 'exposing' as many as possible to what I think are 'key' differences between functional (in terms of leading to 'greater' Life) and dysfuncational truth. Playing forum ping-pong with what you think in the same regard serves such purpose - so this is a BIG 'thank you'!

Thank you for your sincere reply also David. God bless

Ps, in answer to your question, kind to everyone.