The Holy spirit is God's feminine nature, holy Mother

[dio9]

I have a new suggestion of the Trinity. God is our Father everyone can agree, Jesus is our savior and Son , but the holy spirit is nebulous , not clear as Father and Son. The HS is probably instead of holy spirit , holy Mother. Her characteristics as nurturer and comforter are what mothers do, Father Mother and Son make so much more sense than "holy spirit".
All creation reflects God and all creation is created nurtured and increased within the relationships of Father Mother and child. So the holy spirit is actually Holy Mother.

[marco]

[Replying to post 26 by marco]

Romans 1:20 says ; as I read it says the creation reflects the creator. Implies we can know of God's character in Adam and Eve and everything else.

For the invisible things of
him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that
are made, [even] his eternal
power and Godhead; so that
they are without excuse:

I see a Father /Mother , male /female , positive /negative , night and day paradigm here.

We must remember that Paul preferred stupidity to wisdom. Presumably Paul looks at the sun and moon, all things biological and deduces they were made by the fingers of a deity. Paul of course had never seen an aeroplane, else he might have thought this was Jesus on his way back to earth. Even if Paul had a line to heaven, you are deducing too much from his simple statement. Do the teeth of a tiger reflect God, or the sting of a scorpion? Do you pick out what seems nice and attribute them to God, and ignore hurricanes and wasp stings?

I'm pretty sure that the misogynistic Paul did not see the Holy Spirit as God's feminine side, nice notion though it is.

[dio9]

clearly the holy spirit was not recognized by Paul as the feminine aspect in the Godhead, but if not from God what is the origin of the feminine nature we see through out the creation if not God , even flowers have male and female parts.
Where did the female nature the second Eden story would have us believe it came out of Adam?

[bluethread]

What is interesting is how some find fault with theism, because they believe it is purely a human invention, with the deities modeled after humans. Yet, there appears to be an insistence that any credible deity must have human characteristics, or comport with certain human philosophies. Seems like circular reasoning to me.

This insistence that there must be a masculine and feminine nature to Adonai appears to be just such a case. Though many of the theistic philosophies of the nations have established masculine and feminine archetypes, I do no think this needs be the case with the philosophy that Yeshua taught. I personally see this historically as an attempt to Hellenize the Scriptures, making them support the various cultures of the times. It appears to be continuing into the current philosophy of androgynous egalitarianism, where it is mandatory that everyone be seen as equal and be treated according ones momentary preferences at the same time. Thus the Creator must be contained in a compact box, while the created can be whatever it wishes to be without consequence.

I personally see no masculine or feminine to Adonai. Just the equating of certain attributes to human behaviors, for the sake of communicating principles.

[William]

[Replying to post 30 by bluethread]

No, of course not. Husbands and wives praise and enhance one another.

Equally. There is of course more to it than that. Equality is an essential ingredient to any healthy relationship, and to regard such sure observation as nothing more that 'Romanticism' is to deny the true purpose of intelligence and compassion.

Why would one cut away the meat? Marriage is not a bear bones thing. It is a very complicated relationship.

A lot are. As the reader can see, when I mentioned cutting away the meat to get to the bones, it was in regard to your expressions of argument about your use of the word complimentary in relation to the GOD and his bride.

This sounds like an argument in search of conflict.

This is a debate forum where people disagree and in saying so, the appearance of conflicting world views obviously looks like conflict. My arguments are not searching for conflict for the sake of conflict, but to specifically show the reader there is more than one religions way in which to look at things, think about things, and express alternatives, even that those alternatives might contradict a status quo. Your saying "This sounds like an argument in search of conflict" is as silly as someone arguing that "Abrahamic Religions exist because those that support them are in search of conflict."

Actually, there is probably more substance to the truth of that than your own statement, given historical atrocities inflicted on others through the Abrahamic platform.

Some men and women are able to live full fulfilling lives without a mate.

So, do you want to stay focused on the husband and wife/GOD and bride subject or veer off on a tangent?

First you insist that equality is implicit in the term complimentary,

Part and parcel, yes...

then when I show that it is not,

The lawnmower/catcher analogy showed something which I exposed as terrible, pointing out the obvious reasons.

you say the term is "a poor definition" of the marriage relationship.

Certainly. I even said why. I even pointed out that the whole analogy had more to do with a false 'male is superior to female' mentality. I did not say such marriage relationships didn't exist, but that they could hardly be called relationships which are healthy. human to human or GOD to human. Unhealthy is unhealthy.

Equality is also "a poor definition" of marriage. I don't think that either one is a good definition. As I stated before marriage is a very complicated thing.

My point is that we can hardly have expectancy regarding relationship with GOD based on our very shaky poorly understood ideas of relationships which you argue are 'naturally inequality' which is really just a poor understanding and interpretation of the nature of nature, and perhaps even modelling of ones own observations off ones own relationships?

Perhaps marriage is a bad idea in the first place and people should just learn to live together as equals? Who knows! But people who argue for grandiose relationships with GOD when they hardly understand what the hey a 'good relationship' even is in the first place, are putting the old horse before the cart and their arguments look even less believable for that.

Oh, you don't believe in mulching. That is pretty common practice around here. I didn't say which was the mover and which was the catcher. When it come to bearing children the man is clearly the catcher and women have been known to deliver on their own. Why the sexist bias in your presumptions?

You seem to have forgotten where this argument stems from, and that is this idea that some humans believe they are going to be the bride of GOD, and that the bride is not equal with the groom. This is where you decided to make your argument, and then bring in the mower/catcher analogy.

Was I supposed to assume that the mower was the bride and the catcher GOD? What is a catcher without a mower?

Equals.

No, three-quarters and one-quarter equals one. Also, who says the ratio is stagnant. I here tell that in a good marriage each partner gives 110%. How does that work in strict mathematics.

This is not even about mathematics, strict or otherwise. One is in the spiritual sense. Wholeness. Oneness. Do you think Jesus was talking about mathematics, when he spoke of relationship with The Father? Why do you not understand the role of the bride is to be equal with her husband?

I think it would not be possible to do a statistical sample. One could possibly do a sample of a particular activity. However, compilation of all facets of a relationship combined with the assigning a value to each is staggering. Quite frankly, I think any couple that engages in such silly number crunching is not going to have much of a relationship at all.

Like I said, it is not about math. My point was this:

You claimed that "No relationship is equal."

So say you. Perhaps this is true of many human relationships, but then where could one example these and show also that the inequality is a healthy thing?
One can get the gist fairly easily by studying relationships which are based upon the idea "No relationship is equal." with the idea "No relationship based upon the idea of inequality is healthy" and see if indeed there is correlation.

One can even survey good long well proven relationships where both couples are happy and ask them if they believe that "No relationship is equal." and see what they have to say about that.

I would say with a good degree of certainty that the couples will not get out their calculators and crunch numbers before they can give one an answer.

Hold it, I never argued that a difference in skills between partners was ordained by a deity. I just stated it as an observable reality of society. Some are better at some things and others are better at other things. If they join forces and specialize they are better at more things.

No. What you argued was this;

"In every relationship one has skills and abilities that make it superior to the other and vice versa."

Given the subject matter (GOD and his bride) it is clear enough to the reader that your argument to which I have been commenting about is that GOD the husband has ''skills and abilities' which were superior to his bride, 'and vice versa' - which I said is clearly indicative that complimentary attributes create equilibrium, which you argued was not the case and that the bride of GOD is not equal to GOD as "No relationship is equal." according to you.

My argument also pointed out that a real GOD would not judge in the same way that humans judge things, and take cues on how to behave based upon those observations. A bride which expects to be treated with inequality is no good thing for a GOD to be pining after, either.

As I said, your position and consequential argument from said position clearly evidence the likelihood that the Abrahamic idea of GOD is created in the image of human makers (principally) and a fabrication for that.

So, you are in favor of a brave new world, where everyone is exactly the same? Sounds quite boring to me.

That is how many view the Abrahamic religion...boring AND dangerous.

I advocate a system where everyone is treated equally and seen for who they are. Unique individuals with something worthwhile to offer the whole.
Abrahamic religions make such a thing a doctrinal promise in which the faithful will one day be rewarded in either some 'heaven' or 'new earth' situation, while they continue to contribute support for the current systems of disparity as 'necessary' and mock or otherwise suppress any view which suggest humans can build such a world for themselves.

Essential Abramites watch the devil make the cake and think that they will eat that cake with GOD in the new world.

They have their cake and eat it to. I can't see that ending well.

You say, "as it is practiced". Then are you admitting that patriarchy is not inherently bad?

No more than matriarchies. How these things are practiced is what determines there goodness or badness.

My focus regarding these is on goodness of equality over the badness of inequality. This comes through in how the practice is expressed into the external world.

You also condemn matriarchy.

What I 'condemn' is the expressions of inequality as being evident as unhealthy.

Obviously the practical is preceded by the inner workings of the individuals who then externalize those ideas into the world.

You don't seem to have much respect for parenting.

Not the kind which teaches its offspring notions of inequality. It can be regarded as a form of child abuse.

Who is this one and who is it that said that the ideal of equality and it's practical application is the role of the church? Who's doctrine are we talking about?

It is generally regarded that Jesus preached equality, non-judgmentalism, oneness, wholeness, etc et al and a general move away from the old ways of thinking about things to do with GOD and human society and behavior.

Also, are you saying that it is just the bigoted males that are standing in the way of this egalitarian utopia, or all males are by nature bigoted and are standing in the way of the egalitarian utopia.

Bigotry in general, but specifically it is a historical fact that men rode the helm, ran the ship steered the vessel in that particular direction. Do you dispute this historical fact?

No, I am calling it a romantic notion, because it is based in the romanticism of the late 18th century. The romantic ideal of the individual as a moral agent is laudable, as we see in the American revolution. However, the ideal of the individual as equal to all others, is tripe.


A Tale of Two Cities, lays this out quite clearly.

So does the bible for the most part. So what? Even renditions of heaven or new world fantasies promote the ideologies of separatism and values based on possessions, ownership favoritism et al. Clearly more the indication of - yet again - evidence supporting the biblical idea of GOD is created in the image of humans who lord it that way.

Of course such adherents are going to condemn notions of utopia/brave new worlds as beyond the reach of the human being and hand-wave them away as 'Romantic'.
It doesn't mean that the potential isn't there or that it is somehow 'unnatural' to entertain such thinking.

In observing this "modern western human culture" you speak of, I see clearly that it is still heavily influenced by those the Abrahamic religions. Certainly there is a concerted effort for many to try and change that attitude - primarily in themselves and secondarily in expressing distaste for the old ways proven to be more evil than good, and at least extend some energy in attempting to help enlightening others who cling to the old for the sake of remaining unchanged and loyal to a GOD made in the image of human bigots.

Your accusation appeared to be that it was wrong because it was culturally based.

Only in that the wrong within culture is given preferential treatment. That is not really 'culturally based' because it ignores some culture, suppresses some culture, and supports some culture.

What is it that makes your preferred culture inherently superior to any other?

Common sense.

But it isn't about 'being superior' as you have been using that word. The bullying oppressive archetype of predominantly male orientated idealism which has create these belief systems uses the word 'superior' or the ideological phrase 'being superior' as part of its self image, which it naturally enough superimposes on the idea of GOD and effectively created that idea of GOD through that type of thinking. It is a culture unto itself for that.

In its own estimate it is "being superior" with its iron fist and war-faring ways and there is essentially nothing that those who support the potential for 'a brave new world' being built by human beings for all humans beings to share in equally except know that it is potentially possible to achieve but highly unlikely to actually happen as long as the present rulers of the current systems of disparity and their myriad supporters - yourself included - continue using their 'superiority' to work against such potential.

If those ones used their 'superiority' to work for such potential, then it would be possible to build such a world.

For me personally, while I enjoy The Truth that it is within the realm of human potential to create a system of parity, being a realist I also understand what it is that actively works to prevent such a happening and the best I can do in my position is to continue what I am doing. Support the potential and point out what is preventing that potential from taking off.


[font=Comic Sans MS]This is the feeling that you should seek to preserve in the face of life’s distractions. This is the revelation of my heart to your heart. Live in clarity. Live in purpose. Live in the knowledge that you are in me and I am in you, and that there is no place separate from our heart.[/font]
~Excerpt from Chamber 23—One of three written elements from the body of work known as the WingMakers, ascribed to First Source.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 30 by bluethread]

No, of course not. Husbands and wives praise and enhance one another.

Equally. There is of course more to it than that. Equality is an essential ingredient to any healthy relationship, and to regard such sure observation as nothing more that 'Romanticism' is to deny the true purpose of intelligence and compassion.

No, not equally. Each to an appropriate extent and manner, which is different for every person.

This sounds like an argument in search of conflict.

Your saying "This sounds like an argument in search of conflict" is as silly as someone arguing that "Abrahamic Religions exist because those that support them are in search of conflict."

Actually, there is probably more substance to the truth of that than your own statement, given historical atrocities inflicted on others through the Abrahamic platform.

However, you continue to frame your statements with accusation rather than argument.

First you insist that equality is implicit in the term complimentary,

Part and parcel, yes...

then when I show that it is not,

The lawnmower/catcher analogy showed something which I exposed as terrible, pointing out the obvious reasons.

Because a lawnmower and catcher are not complimentary, or that the fact that a lawnmower does not necessarily require a catcher does not work for your argument?

you say the term is "a poor definition" of the marriage relationship.

Certainly. I even said why. I even pointed out that the whole analogy had more to do with a false 'male is superior to female' mentality. I did not say such marriage relationships didn't exist, but that they could hardly be called relationships which are healthy. human to human or GOD to human. Unhealthy is unhealthy.

It is too bad that you inferred that mentality. I didn't even imply such a thing. I merely showed how two complimentary things need not be equal. It would be nice if you could support your view with more than a simple rejection of the term complimentary.

Equality is also "a poor definition" of marriage. I don't think that either one is a good definition. As I stated before marriage is a very complicated thing.

My point is that we can hardly have expectancy regarding relationship with GOD based on our very shaky poorly understood ideas of relationships which you argue are 'naturally inequality' which is really just a poor understanding and interpretation of the nature of nature, and perhaps even modelling of ones own observations off ones own relationships?

Perhaps marriage is a bad idea in the first place and people should just learn to live together as equals? Who knows! But people who argue for grandiose relationships with GOD when they hardly understand what the hey a 'good relationship' even is in the first place, are putting the old horse before the cart and their arguments look even less believable for that.

I never said anything like that, or appealed to personal experience. Please, explain to me the "nature of nature". Where does one see equality in nature? Nearly everything , if not everything in nature is unequal. Equality is a philosophical concept that relates to very narrow comparisons, as in mathematics or mechanics.

Oh, you don't believe in mulching. That is pretty common practice around here. I didn't say which was the mover and which was the catcher. When it come to bearing children the man is clearly the catcher and women have been known to deliver on their own. Why the sexist bias in your presumptions?

You seem to have forgotten where this argument stems from, and that is this idea that some humans believe they are going to be the bride of GOD, and that the bride is not equal with the groom. This is where you decided to make your argument, and then bring in the mower/catcher analogy.

Was I supposed to assume that the mower was the bride and the catcher GOD? What is a catcher without a mower?

Neither, my only point is that equality is not a useful term when speaking about relationships.

Equals.

No, three-quarters and one-quarter equals one. Also, who says the ratio is stagnant. I here tell that in a good marriage each partner gives 110%. How does that work in strict mathematics.

This is not even about mathematics, strict or otherwise. One is in the spiritual sense. Wholeness. Oneness. Do you think Jesus was talking about mathematics, when he spoke of relationship with The Father? Why do you not understand the role of the bride is to be equal with her husband?

No, I don't think Yeshua was talking about mathematics, that is why I am surprised that you are so dogmatic in arguing that two becoming one implies equality. It doesn't, It speaks of harmony not equality and harmony comes from two or more thing being complimentary. Equality is not necessary.

I think it would not be possible to do a statistical sample. One could possibly do a sample of a particular activity. However, compilation of all facets of a relationship combined with the assigning a value to each is staggering. Quite frankly, I think any couple that engages in such silly number crunching is not going to have much of a relationship at all.

Like I said, it is not about math. My point was this:

You claimed that "No relationship is equal."

So say you. Perhaps this is true of many human relationships, but then where could one example these and show also that the inequality is a healthy thing?
One can get the gist fairly easily by studying relationships which are based upon the idea "No relationship is equal." with the idea "No relationship based upon the idea of inequality is healthy" and see if indeed there is correlation.

One can even survey good long well proven relationships where both couples are happy and ask them if they believe that "No relationship is equal." and see what they have to say about that.

I would say with a good degree of certainty that the couples will not get out their calculators and crunch numbers before they can give one an answer.

Oh, you are talking about perceived equality, not actual equality. Well, that is so subjective that there will never be a clear answer. However, humility goes a long way in a relationship. Paul speaks of this when he says, (Phil. 2:3b)"let each esteem others better than themselves." This is hardly a call for equality, but quite the opposite.

Hold it, I never argued that a difference in skills between partners was ordained by a deity. I just stated it as an observable reality of society. Some are better at some things and others are better at other things. If they join forces and specialize they are better at more things.

No. What you argued was this;

"In every relationship one has skills and abilities that make it superior to the other and vice versa."

Given the subject matter (GOD and his bride) it is clear enough to the reader that your argument to which I have been commenting about is that GOD the husband has ''skills and abilities' which were superior to his bride, 'and vice versa' - which I said is clearly indicative that complimentary attributes create equilibrium, which you argued was not the case and that the bride of GOD is not equal to GOD as "No relationship is equal." according to you.

My argument also pointed out that a real GOD would not judge in the same way that humans judge things, and take cues on how to behave based upon those observations. A bride which expects to be treated with inequality is no good thing for a GOD to be pining after, either.

As I said, your position and consequential argument from said position clearly evidence the likelihood that the Abrahamic idea of GOD is created in the image of human makers (principally) and a fabrication for that.

What you quoted is indeed what I said, but the rest is your inferences, which I did not say. Those two quotes of mine are pretty much interchangeable. Regarding the comparison of the relationship of Adonai and His people to a marriage, it is just that, a comparison. A human marriage and Adonai's relationship with His people are not exactly the same. However, one thing they do have in common is that the two parties are not equals. Adonai is clearly superior to humans in every way. However, husbands are not superior to their wives in every way. In some ways they are superior and in other ways they are inferior.

So, you are in favor of a brave new world, where everyone is exactly the same? Sounds quite boring to me.

That is how many view the Abrahamic religion...boring AND dangerous.

I advocate a system where everyone is treated equally and seen for who they are. Unique individuals with something worthwhile to offer the whole.

To you r point, people can not be treated equally and seen for who they are as unique individuals. They can be treated equally in limited circumstances, i.e. in a court of law. However, treating men and women equally in all areas is silly. Men are naturally much stronger than women and women are naturally more cooperative than men. Regarding your accusatory generalization, I am going to start ignoring them, because they just muddy the waters.

You say, "as it is practiced". Then are you admitting that patriarchy is not inherently bad?

No more than matriarchies. How these things are practiced is what determines there goodness or badness.

My focus regarding these is on goodness of equality over the badness of inequality. This comes through in how the practice is expressed into the external world.

So, are we going to drop the patriarchy thing, that you brought up, by the way, and focus on the issue of equality and inequality. If so, that would be fine with me, since these class warfare digression are really distracting from the main issue, i.e. equality.

You don't seem to have much respect for parenting.

Not the kind which teaches its offspring notions of inequality. It can be regarded as a form of child abuse.

So, are you arguing that children should be treated as equals to their parents?

Who is this one and who is it that said that the ideal of equality and it's practical application is the role of the church? Who's doctrine are we talking about?

It is generally regarded that Jesus preached equality, non-judgmentalism, oneness, wholeness, etc et al and a general move away from the old ways of thinking about things to do with GOD and human society and behavior.

Well, that is as clear as mud. Please, provide a reference where Yeshua said that the ideal of equality and it's practical application is the role of the church.

Also, are you saying that it is just the bigoted males that are standing in the way of this egalitarian utopia, or all males are by nature bigoted and are standing in the way of the egalitarian utopia.

Bigotry in general, but specifically it is a historical fact that men rode the helm, ran the ship steered the vessel in that particular direction. Do you dispute this historical fact?

I dispute the implication that bigotry is exclusive to men and that it is an inherent characteristic of men. I do believe that men tend to be more aggressive, and therefore tend to be more dominant is society. However, that is just one of the reasons why men and women should not be treated equally.

No, I am calling it a romantic notion, because it is based in the romanticism of the late 18th century. The romantic ideal of the individual as a moral agent is laudable, as we see in the American revolution. However, the ideal of the individual as equal to all others, is tripe.


A Tale of Two Cities, lays this out quite clearly.

So does the bible for the most part. So what? Even renditions of heaven or new world fantasies promote the ideologies of separatism and values based on possessions, ownership favoritism et al. Clearly more the indication of - yet again - evidence supporting the biblical idea of GOD is created in the image of humans who lord it that way.

Of course such adherents are going to condemn notions of utopia/brave new worlds as beyond the reach of the human being and hand-wave them away as 'Romantic'.
It doesn't mean that the potential isn't there or that it is somehow 'unnatural' to entertain such thinking.

Whish one? The English model of the individual as a moral agent, or the French model of the all being equal members of the state?

Your accusation appeared to be that it was wrong because it was culturally based.

Only in that the wrong within culture is given preferential treatment. That is not really 'culturally based' because it ignores some culture, suppresses some culture, and supports some culture.

Then are you now arguing that all cultures are equal and it is only bigotry that distinguishes one from the other?

What is it that makes your preferred culture inherently superior to any other?

Common sense.

But it isn't about 'being superior' as you have been using that word.

First, common sense is a fallacy. Second, I am using the word as a comparative, not authoritative. I have been speaking in comparitive terms all along, but you insist on painting inequality as authoritarian oppression. The question is, what makes your egalitarian society preferrable to all others? Do you actually believe that all unequal relationships are by nature oppressive?

[dio9]

[Replying to post 33 by bluethread]

What does created in the image of God mean, doesn't it mean what it straight forward says? We are not created as little God's but humanity and the rest of the creation are like God.
Brings to mind what the Patristic Fathers wrote about God and Man. We are not the same substance but we are of like substance. So yes we can know God from his likeness just as we can know Shakespeare from his plays.
If indeed God is our creator we necessarily must resemble the Godhead.

[William]

[Replying to post 36 by dio9]

Really what it boils down to at this stage of the game, we each discover GOD in our own likeness but if we do not really know ourselves as we truly are, then that likeness will be distorted, and the distortion is then expressed into the world as 'the many faces of GOD' and serve to reflect - not GOD but renditions of GOD which go through the lens of individual perceptions more often than not bent to suit the external voices of those who taught us their knowledge and in affect made us images of themselves, and this also happened to them...

One can indeed get a glimpse into the character of a fellow/group simply by hearing what they say about GOD.

I found the following exemplified adequately my own understanding and relationship with GOD.

[font=Comic Sans MS] MY CENTRAL REVELATION
You evolve inwards, ever in the direction of my creator soul. This is the province of myself that does not indwell you, but indeed is separate from you as the stars are isolated from a deep cave. This place is the source and destiny of your existence, and from it, you descend into the cave of your animal-origins where my voice falls silent to your choices.
My plan for your ascendance embraces every creature in all dimensions of all worlds. I do this by divesting myself of every function that is possible for another of my creation to carry out. That which I create is given the power to perform my role, thus I am hidden from your view because you have come to believe that I am that which I have created.
I am First Source, and your knowing of me is a thousand times removed. I dwell in the Central Universe so distant from you as to make space an unfathomable abstraction, and yet, a fragment of my self is set within your personality like a diamond upon a ring, and it will endure as certainly as I will endure. While there are those who believe I am a myth, I express to you that my world is the beacon of all personalities in all times, and whether you believe in me or not, you are unerringly drawn to the source from whence you were created.
I would prefer to be known to you at all times and places, but if I did this then the evolutionary journey of my creation would break down, and the teacher-student ordering of my system of ascendancy would falter. I have cast myself into numberless orders of beings that collectively constitute the evolutionary bridge of your ascendancy into my realm. There is no step of your journey that another has not already taken on behalf of those who follow.
I have formed these words with the help of my inmost creation, known to you, through these teachings, as the Central Race. Their record is placed upon your planet to catalyze—within those of your kind who are ready—an awakening of me as I truly am. This record will last for many generations, sometimes hidden from view, sometimes abstracted into symbols, sometimes collected into doubt, but always it will be my voice revealed upon your planet.
While it is not the first time I have spoken to your planet’s people, it is the first time I have spoken through my inmost creation and left an indelible, multi-dimensional record. On the surface of this record is a mythology of the Central Race, but if you find my voice within this mythology, you will see another facet to this record, of a personal inflection, that speaks directly to you, my child. It is this intimacy that I have encoded into this record that is symbolic of my hand reaching for yours, and it is this intimacy that will persist within your mind and heart when all else fails you.
My voice will help you reconnect with me. It will enlarge your vision of my domain, purpose, and my unyielding love for each of my creation, no matter where or how you live. When I have spoken before to your planet, it was through a prism of personalities that bent my voice and colored its tone. My mind’s voice will not travel to your world unless it is transmitted through my creation and translated into word-symbols your mind can grasp. My heart’s voice penetrates all worlds without translation as a sub-photonic light and inter-dimensional vibration that produces sound.
I am revealed to you in hopes that you will reveal to others what you have found in me. Not by sanctimonious words, but rather, by redefining our relationship and living in accordance with this new clarity. In so doing you will release what I have long ago stored within you—a fragment of myself, a dagger of light that renders your self-importance a decisive death.
Truly, this is my central revelation. I am here, beneath this mythology, to awaken your animal self to our relationship so you may slay your vanity. This is the distortion between us. It is not space or time that separates us and diminishes our conscious relationship. It is your desire to excel within the cave of your existence and derive gratification from this and this alone.
I will leave to others to define the psychological wisdom and common sense behaviors of success. My words penetrate elsewhere; to a place within you that is susceptible, innocent, faithful, and ever listening for a tonal hint of my presence. When it is found, this part of you—like an instrument entrained by a powerful resonance—will vibrate in accordance to my voice.
All of your religions teach the worship of a deity and a doctrine of human salvation. It is the underlying kinship of your planet’s religions. However, I am not the deity that your worship falls upon, nor am I the creator of your doctrines of human salvation. Worship of me in coin or moral consideration is unnecessary. Simply express your authentic feelings of appreciation to my inmost presence within you and others, and you broadcast your worship unfailingly into my realm.
This is the feeling that you should seek to preserve in the face of life’s distractions. This is the revelation of my heart to your heart. Live in clarity. Live in purpose. Live in the knowledge that you are in me and I am in you, and that there is no place separate from our heart.[/font]
~ Excerpt from Chamber 23—One of three written elements from the body of work known as the WingMakers, ascribed to First Source.

For me at least, the above resonates 'goodness' and attracts me.

[dio9]

[Replying to post 37 by William]

in deed it is all important to know our true self because we can so easily mistakenly create a wrong idea of who we are from our situation life experience and environment rather than realizing our original true self.
The Brahman Atman theology basically say , how much we can know God depends on how much we can know ourselves. Our true self is like God.

[marco]

clearly the holy spirit was not recognized by Paul as the feminine aspect in the Godhead, but if not from God what is the origin of the feminine nature we see through out the creation if not God , even flowers have male and female parts.
Where did the female nature the second Eden story would have us believe it came out of Adam?

I suppose we could ask the same question about protons and electrons, about magnetic poles and binary stars. "I don't know" therefore God did it doesn't seem to me a reasonable deduction, though it was satisfactory to ancient peoples. Adam is irrelevant.

[marco]

[Replying to post 37 by William]

in deed it is all important to know our true self because we can so easily mistakenly create a wrong idea of who we are from our situation life experience and environment rather than realizing our original true self.
The Brahman Atman theology basically say , how much we can know God depends on how much we can know ourselves. Our true self is like God.

Socrates would have agreed but we have to ask the right questions. To start off with the premise that we can find ourselves in the Abrahamic God is maybe setting off on the wrong path before we start our search. We are more likely to lose ourselves in Adam, Job, Lot and Noah rather than find truth.