Dispel my confusion, if you can... (Jesus, ritual, Creator, gospel)

[Random]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Is "I don't know" insufficient?

I don't know the answer to that question...

[wizanda]

Shepherds and farmers, not those who harm us, are what are sleeked,
Oneness is the true heaven for the meek,
Not for the weak.
Character strong, makes good reflections,
Books are not directions.
Enlightenment corrections,
Grasp and will never be free.
Accept and see,
It’s easy like 123.
The dimensions are a pattern found,
Quantum sound,
The mysteries abounds,
As the Scoundrels compound,
A crime that is clean,
Careful who gleams.
Remember a Random who was keen,
Same one it seems?

[Random]

Originally Posted by Booko

Perhaps the point is more about the questions than the answers?

Hmm, yes. It is said if questioning ever ends so does the journey and you are dead to life. All the best truths are paradoxical, are they not?

[wizanda]

Originally Posted by Random

All the best truths are paradoxical, are they not?

Takes allot of squeezing sh** too make a diamond...
Contradiction does cause learning, yet then how many spend the time too learn wisdom?....

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Willamena

ooh! My Zen book said that, today.

Haha! That's a great coincidence!

Among Baha'is it is sometimes remarked that among the names for months in our calendar, there is a month called "Questions" but none called "Answers."

[Random]

Originally Posted by wizanda

Contradiction does cause learning, yet then how many spend the time too learn wisdom?....

A few, but clearly you've spent the time necessary in your life. Good.

[wizanda]

Originally Posted by Random

A few, but clearly you've spent the time necessary in your life. Good.

It's more a case of forgetting to sit back every so often, an just breathe

Knowledge is found at the end of our nose, wisdom is found at the bottom of your toes....

[slabbey06]

Originally Posted by Random

Thanks to all for the kind words and responses.

Ultimately, for me, regardless of whether Jesus was GOD or GOD never had a body or is Brahma or whatever framework you accept for the Absolute, the language we use to describe certain aspects of our shared reality is made redundant in the absence of the reference point or centre that the concept of GOD brings. I have found this and wished it were otherwise, but if I were to pretend this were not true then I would be lost, with no-one to find me. I won't ever settle for knowing so much that isn't so on every level and sense available. I cannot abide incompleteness, but a personal GOD (like Christ) provides too specific a reference point that men of great dishonour can impute their lies and half-truths upon for worldly ends, whilst and impersonal GOD (like the Universe) is lacking the interactive element of mind or soul that is essential to spiritual enlightenment and in any case is probably indifferent to our plight. So you see: atheist, pantheist, panentheist, monotheist, nontheist -- take your pick, I can be one or all of them on some level, yet none of them! It is truly absurd to the rational mind. I think I will figure it out in time...

I've read this post like 10 times now. There's a lot of depth to it and I'm letting it soak in. I have a question. It's about this part of your post...
"I cannot abide incompleteness, but a personal GOD (like Christ) provides too specific a reference point that men of great dishonour can impute their lies and half-truths upon for worldly ends..."
I'm not sure I understand why the men of great dishonor (let's be honest, women too) who do this discredits a personal God. Can't people do things in the "name" of someone and that someone not condone it? If someone did something terrible in my name, I wouldn't want people to think it was a reflection of my character or that I condoned that person's actions. Isn't that kind of like throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Does my question make sense?

[Kungfuzed]

Originally Posted by slabbey06

I've read this post like 10 times now. There's a lot of depth to it and I'm letting it soak in. I have a question. It's about this part of your post...
"I cannot abide incompleteness, but a personal GOD (like Christ) provides too specific a reference point that men of great dishonour can impute their lies and half-truths upon for worldly ends..."
I'm not sure I understand why the men of great dishonor (let's be honest, women too) who do this discredits a personal God. Can't people do things in the "name" of someone and that someone not condone it? If someone did something terrible in my name, I wouldn't want people to think it was a reflection of my character or that I condoned that person's actions. Isn't that kind of like throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Does my question make sense?

I agree. A personal God should be communicating directly with you, not through some preacher or book. If God has to speak to you through someone else then He's not very personal, is He?