Ya'quub vs. Acim: Forgiveness

[Acim]

Starting this thread was @Ya'quub idea which I agreed to, and so I decided take initiative to get the thread going.

This discussion/debate stems from what I said in another thread where I said:

I'm not big on the "should" word. If asking me how I think people should respond to perceived wrongdoing, I would go with whatever way makes most sense to them. Given my theological understandings, it's all going to be fine regardless of how that response appears. Might delay certain theological outcomes (in appearance only) for awhile, but won't lead to downfall of (God's) Reality regardless of the action/response.

If asking me how I think it best to respond to perceived wrongdoing, i.e. person going on a shooting rampage, I would say with forgiveness. I routinely see forgiveness framed as for the person perceived as engaging in wrongdoing, to somehow justify that as 'okay' and that this is best (somehow, magically). There's a whole lot to be said for just how erroneous that is for forgiveness to be framed that way. In essence, it is not doing anything in relation to the perceived wrong, and is variation of the original error (which could be perhaps better explained via wall of text). The perceived wrongdoing is judgment. And if looking really really closely, honestly directly - it is really a judgment of own self. But the temptation, and logic at work, is to not at all make it about own self. Yet one must honestly ask, who is it that is perceiving it as wrong?

Therefore forgiveness is foremost for own self. In essence to change perception. In short term, it could be to change perception of that situation. In actuality, it is to change perception of own self. I see that as restoring self understanding (or judgment) to a default state, where there is no conviction in (inherently) right or wrong actions. Yet, I don't see it ending there, and forgiveness is really offering a new beginning. A passing away of old beliefs. Due to my theological understandings, I see forgiveness as naturally leading to experience of (God's) Love and Grace. How things work from there is perhaps another wall of text, or world of history with purified perception.

I do understand forgivness as the only sane defense in a world that perceives separation from God and other selves to be 'reality.'

Ya'quub responded with a quote from this that said:

Acim said: Given my theological understandings, it's all going to be fine regardless of how that response appears.
Ya'quub: Please expand (wall of text is just fine!).
​

And so here we are. We've discussed in PM that this is the right place on the forum to further the discussion.

I'll let Ya'quub chime in, and hopefully provide specific direction or whatever opening points Ya-quub wishes to make.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Starting this thread was @Ya'quub idea which I agreed to, and so I decided take initiative to get the thread going.

This discussion/debate stems from what I said in another thread where I said:



Ya'quub responded with a quote from this that said:

Acim said: Given my theological understandings, it's all going to be fine regardless of how that response appears.
Ya'quub: Please expand (wall of text is just fine!).
​

And so here we are. We've discussed in PM that this is the right place on the forum to further the discussion.

I'll let Ya'quub chime in, and hopefully provide specific direction or whatever opening points Ya-quub wishes to make.

Many thanks for getting this going Acim. Let's just get stuck in shall we? You refer above to your 'theological understandings'. This might be a good place to start - what is your view of our place in 'the great scheme of things', our relationship to one or more deities, to other people, creatures and the world around us, etc.?

 

[Acim]

All good questions. I'd like to propose that we both speak to those questions as part of opening statements. You can go second

I see us (humanity) as one entity that has apparently split into individual selves. We are extensions of Creator God (Father/Mother) and are both Creation and that which can Create.

The split among ourselves (or our Self) is off shoot of the split we sought from Creator God, to be 'without God.' Seeing that this is impossible (as we are God, by way of extension), then the scheme of things had to manifest a whole universe of illusion that would be/is convincing of a place where God is (apparently) not.

I am strong theist and utilize Christian understandings of Creator God, though from Gnostic perspective rather than orthodox. I see overlap between the two, but also see sharp/clear distinctions. I essentially believe 'creator' of the universe is a demiurge (for lack of better word). Again, I see this demiurge as us, but is challenging for me to describe because I feel more entrenched in thinking of 'us' as collection of individual selves rather than as one self. I think as one Self, our existence/power is greater than the sum of the apparent individual parts.

Between this demiurge and Creator God, there is no separation from Creator God's perspective. I understand intellectual distinction, but feel it is fairly superficial, and that as Co-Creators with our Father/Mother, we are equal. Yet, due to separation, we have rendered ourselves to appear far less than what, or who, we actually are. As wonderfully vast and totally awesome as the physical universe appears (at least to my individual physical self), I understand it as miscreation, and a whole lot of nothingness that appears as 'everything.' In short, an illusion of existence.

I see separation as fundamental error, that has manifested a whole lot of treachery, reason to be fearful, 'reasonable' judgments of guilt, and beliefs that sure as heck appear to oppose Creator God. So from demiurge's perspective, there very much appears to be a will that opposes God, and that essentially renders God powerless to do anything about. Anything God may do, would plausibly be perceived as opposition to the demiurge's will, and that if/when things don't go how I/we feel is best, then probably best to just assume God is to blame given that He/She stands opposed to us.

My theological understandings see all of what is in previous paragraph as insanity, and understands God is not insane. Again, no actual separation in God, and nothing actually is possible to oppose God, to threaten God's existence, or will (our will). The essence of God's Will is eternal life and maximal Love. The essence of demiurge's will (post separation) is all life shall die and love is, at best, conditional.

The way to overcome the insanity is via forgiveness. Foremost to forgive the fundamental error and restore awareness to full alignment with Creation/Creator. In an insane world, where God is apparently nowhere to be found, our only (sane) function is forgiveness.

ETA: Adding upon reread the concept of Holy Spirit. I see this as Creator God's Voice for God and intermediary between what is demiurge's end game and Creator's God eternal desire for direct communication. I see Holy Spirit and Christ as full potential of demiurge before separation and what can never truly be lost, but may be denied/forgotten for as long as separation from God is desired.

How's that for an opening statement?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

All good questions. I'd like to propose that we both speak to those questions as part of opening statements. You can go second

I see us (humanity) as one entity that has apparently split into individual selves. We are extensions of Creator God (Father/Mother) and are both Creation and that which can Create.

The split among ourselves (or our Self) is off shoot of the split we sought from Creator God, to be 'without God.' Seeing that this is impossible (as we are God, by way of extension), then the scheme of things had to manifest a whole universe of illusion that would be/is convincing of a place where God is (apparently) not.

I am strong theist and utilize Christian understandings of Creator God, though from Gnostic perspective rather than orthodox. I see overlap between the two, but also see sharp/clear distinctions. I essentially believe 'creator' of the universe is a demiurge (for lack of better word). Again, I see this demiurge as us, but is challenging for me to describe because I feel more entrenched in thinking of 'us' as collection of individual selves rather than as one self. I think as one Self, our existence/power is greater than the sum of the apparent individual parts.

Between this demiurge and Creator God, there is no separation from Creator God's perspective. I understand intellectual distinction, but feel it is fairly superficial, and that as Co-Creators with our Father/Mother, we are equal. Yet, due to separation, we have rendered ourselves to appear far less than what, or who, we actually are. As wonderfully vast and totally awesome as the physical universe appears (at least to my individual physical self), I understand it as miscreation, and a whole lot of nothingness that appears as 'everything.' In short, an illusion of existence.

I see separation as fundamental error, that has manifested a whole lot of treachery, reason to be fearful, 'reasonable' judgments of guilt, and beliefs that sure as heck appear to oppose Creator God. So from demiurge's perspective, there very much appears to be a will that opposes God, and that essentially renders God powerless to do anything about. Anything God may do, would plausibly be perceived as opposition to the demiurge's will, and that if/when things don't go how I/we feel is best, then probably best to just assume God is to blame given that He/She stands opposed to us.

My theological understandings see all of what is in previous paragraph as insanity, and understands God is not insane. Again, no actual separation in God, and nothing actually is possible to oppose God, to threaten God's existence, or will (our will). The essence of God's Will is eternal life and maximal Love. The essence of demiurge's will (post separation) is all life shall die and love is, at best, conditional.

The way to overcome the insanity is via forgiveness. Foremost to forgive the fundamental error and restore awareness to full alignment with Creation/Creator. In an insane world, where God is apparently nowhere to be found, our only (sane) function is forgiveness.

ETA: Adding upon reread the concept of Holy Spirit. I see this as Creator God's Voice for God and intermediary between what is demiurge's end game and Creator's God eternal desire for direct communication. I see Holy Spirit and Christ as full potential of demiurge before separation and what can never truly be lost, but may be denied/forgotten for as long as separation from God is desired.

How's that for an opening statement?

That's a very nice opening statement I can see some clear parallels between your worldview and mine

So, I agree that we are all One Entity - this Entity I call The God/dess - and that it appears as if we have 'split' into individual selves. I extend the 'we' here to include all 'things' in the universe (you may do also, but since you refer to the 'us' in your opening line as 'humanity', suggesting a distinction from other things, I just want to be clear about my view).
So The God/dess is One and there is none (nothing) else besides The God/dess.

My view also represents a Gnostic departure from, in my case, mainstream Islaamic opinion. The God/dess is the Unity of all things, but that includes the being known in Christian and Islaamic thought as Satan. This Satan is the Lord of Disunity, the antithesis of Unity. Satan, by definition, cannot but 'break away' from The God/dess. In thus 'separating' from The God/dess, Satan pulls some of The God/dess' spirit(s) 'away', creating the 'early' energetic-material universe in the process, trapping the spirit(s) inside. In this sense, Satan is the original demiurge (although insofar as Satan is but a part of The God/dess, so too is The God/dess). The God/dess responds by infusing tiny sparks of Theirself - spirits - into the early universe to liberate the spirits trapped inside by Satan, breaking it up into the 'later' universe and its various constituent parts. In this sense, The God/dess is the Creator of the universe and all things (including all living things and humankind). Satan and Satan's servants (early entrapped spirits) respond by striving to entrap those spirits within the energetic-material forms they occupy. The God/dess responds by 'sending' yet more spirits into the world to 'do battle' with Satan and their servants and liberate the spirits trapped inside. And so on, ad infinitum. This is what underlies the evolution of the universe and ultimately all living things, including ourselves. Our mission, then, is to liberate the spirits trapped within the energetic-material universe/world (I use the terms universe and world interchangeably). Trouble is, most spirits are pretty weak, forget their true identity and mission, and become trapped (or lost) in the world. Some of these also become willing servants of Satan. So The God/dess 'sends' more, stronger spirits, capable of resisting Satan and their servants, to 'awaken' the entrapped spirits. These are the Angels and the human Messengers and Prophets. Jesus is one such Messenger. Muhammad (pbuh) another (the final one).

Like you, ultimately I see this all as just The God/dess. However, there is no illusion here. Everything is real. The God/dess before The God/dess-minus-the-early-universe-plus-the-early-universe, The God/dess-minus-the-early-universe-plus-the-early-universe and The God/dess-minus-the-early-universe-plus-the-early-universe-transformed-into-the-later-universe, etc., etc. are all The God/dess, but these are all nevertheless different 'forms' of The God/dess. Moreover, The God/dess has a very strong preference for Herself in Her Form before The God/dess-minus-the-early-universe-plus-the-early-universe, when there was no distinction between Her constituent parts. She hates Satan. She is therefore essentially locked in Eternal Battle with Satan. We are the soldiers. The universe is the Battlefield. So The God/dess is Unity yes, but not Universal Love. And Satan and any who serve Satan we (created by The God/dess to battle Satan and their servants for the spirits trapped within the world) should hate (and therefore not forgive).

I'll leave it there, for now

Now, to return to your opening statement, when did the apparent split begin? Why? Why did God not prevent the apparent split? And will the apparent split at some point in the future resolve, such that there is no longer any illusion?

 

[Acim]

I agree there is much overlap in our theological understandings. And some fundamental differences. I'm thinking we are here in this thread to debate the differences, while honoring the overlap and sharing in our agreement.

Unless one of us adds back to back posts, I'm not going to quote what will be me mostly responding to your latest post (going forward), except for excerpt I may wish to respond to directly.

So, when you say/ask:

Now, to return to your opening statement, when did the apparent split begin? Why? Why did God not prevent the apparent split? And will the apparent split at some point in the future resolve, such that there is no longer any illusion?

I'm thinking that is good next questions to address, but.... I think the heart of our disagreement stems from what you said:

And Satan and any who serve Satan we (created by The God/dess to battle Satan and their servants for the spirits trapped within the world) should hate (and therefore not forgive).

I'd like to maintain focus on the 'forgiveness' aspect, but not necessarily limit discussion to that. In responding to what you've asked, I think I will indirectly respond to the forgiveness topic, though do really wish to address that foremost.

I am glad you chose to maintain words of "apparent split." I'm glad because as I understand the predicament, it is an illusion. It's both illusion and fundamental error. If that doesn't make sense, I could provide analogy, but for now will move on as if you do possibly understand this.

I don't know when apparent split occurred, but have what I'd call story as to when, why, how it occurred and what Creator God did in response to it. Here's how I'd answer with what I think is most accurate, but wish to note that as I've contemplated on this topic of apparently split, I've come to realize it doesn't really matter when, why, or how it occurred. Intellectually speaking, I find it fascinating. Spiritually, I find it closer to meaningless as a consideration.

The apparent split occurred when time-space began (as illusion) within God's Kingdom/Heaven. I see that as tautological, or I could just as well say that time-space began (as illusion) when the apparent split occurred. I think 'when' is a somewhat nonsensical reference from (within) perspective of eternity. As I currently have faith in time-space, I recognize that to us, or perhaps just me, it isn't necessarily nonsensical and seemingly is a BFD as to when this occurred. I honestly think when is ultimately meaningless.

Why it occurred is related to my understanding of how. The story that makes sense to me is that Creation (essentially Us) created/manifested the thought of 'life without God.' Which was met (by Creator God, and perhaps 'some' of Us) with laughter. I interpret that as joy or welcoming of the consideration, and realizing immediately of how impossible that is, though humorous to entertain. Then (some of) Us, willing to entertain it as a 'reality' is the how it occurred. Willing into existence a frame of reference where Creator God is nowhere to be found. The appeal of this frame is the why, or the desire to experience 'life without God.'

Given the reality that we are God, then 'life without God' is akin to saying we desired to experience existence without Existence. Intellectually, it seems so obvious how not possible all this is. And yet, here we are.

When the apparent split occurred, I believe in same instance God manifested Holy Spirit as Voice or reminder of direct path that has always existed, still exists, never ceased to exist to Creator God. But being that freewill means you (as Creator) can manifest whatever thou wilt, then entertaining what was a simple idea became desire to experience the frame of reference of 'life without God.' God didn't prevent what God knows never occurred. And knows Creation is perfect and will realize that the impossible cannot be made possible, other than in an illusion.

The apparent split has already been resolved. This is, I think, the most challenging thing to accept within an illusion where God is nowhere to be found. Though gotta maintain a bunch of ignorant assertions for the 'God is nowhere to be found' idea to hold any water. Gotta deny that this is illusion. Gotta deny God is within. Gotta deny unity. Gotta deny perfect Love.

Take those same denials and turn them in on themselves and the illusion is undone. IOW, realizing this is illusion, and God is within, and separation is unreal, and God is perfect Love undoes the illusion (of separation from God and from all selves). From spiritual perspective, I truly believe it is this easy, this obvious. From intellectual self that is self convinced certain processes of realization take (a long) time, it could appear to take another million years to come to terms with this understanding of own self. But what's a million, or even a trillion years, within scope of eternity? I'd say very little (at best) and closer to nothing.

The appeal to 'life without God' I think is underestimated. It's the why the apparent split occurred and why it appears so challenging to overcome. Intellectually, where mental constructs are all that is held to exist, I think of it as obvious. Given experience of 'existence itself' and what I may refer to as 'daily living' the overcoming is something I may 'fit into my day, when I can' as I have other, more important things, to get on with. All of which are really reinforcing the illusion and my appeal to it. None of which are meaningful, or are given all the meaning they have for me, by me.

I see forgiveness as way to invoke a undoing of the illusion and of turning denial onto itself. In essence, it shortens the time of undoing the illusion and fully realizing it is all undone already.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I agree there is much overlap in our theological understandings. And some fundamental differences.

Agreed!

I'm thinking we are here in this thread to debate the differences, while honoring the overlap and sharing in our agreement.

Again, agreed!

I'm thinking that is good next questions to address, but.... I think the heart of our disagreement stems from what you said:

I do see these as fundamentally linked.

I'd like to maintain focus on the 'forgiveness' aspect, but not necessarily limit discussion to that. In responding to what you've asked, I think I will indirectly respond to the forgiveness topic, though do really wish to address that foremost.

As above, I think discussion of my initial questions will lead us to the forgiveness topic.

I am glad you chose to maintain words of "apparent split." I'm glad because as I understand the predicament, it is an illusion. It's both illusion and fundamental error. If that doesn't make sense, I could provide analogy, but for now will move on as if you do possibly understand this.

So this is I think what lies at the root of our differences, or at least is intimately linked to those differences, though presumably, from your perspective, if all is illusion, there are no differences. I completely understand where you are coming from. I have toyed with this idea myself for a long time, before rejecting it.

I don't know when apparent split occurred, but have what I'd call story as to when, why, how it occurred and what Creator God did in response to it. Here's how I'd answer with what I think is most accurate, but wish to note that as I've contemplated on this topic of apparently split, I've come to realize it doesn't really matter when, why, or how it occurred. Intellectually speaking, I find it fascinating. Spiritually, I find it closer to meaningless as a consideration.

Do you not worry that you might get locked into considering these things intellectually and as a result become 'trapped' in the illusion? Then again, if all is illusion, perhaps none of this - whether one is 'trapped' in the illusion or not - really matters anyway.

The apparent split occurred when time-space began (as illusion) within God's Kingdom/Heaven. I see that as tautological, or I could just as well say that time-space began (as illusion) when the apparent split occurred. I think 'when' is a somewhat nonsensical reference from (within) perspective of eternity.

From what you have said thus far, I understand God's Kingdom/Heaven as being all there was, is and ever shall be - right? 'We' never left God's Kingdom/Heaven. If this is true, then surely the illusion is also God's Kingdom/Heaven too?

I am inclined to think the 'when' question is nonsensical too. This is because I see the universe going through an endless series of cycles of 'birth', 'expansion', 'contraction' and 'death'.

As I currently have faith in time-space, I recognize that to us, or perhaps just me, it isn't necessarily nonsensical and seemingly is a BFD as to when this occurred. I honestly think when is ultimately meaningless.

What does BFD stand for?

The story that makes sense to me is that Creation (essentially Us) created/manifested the thought of 'life without God.'

i.e. God created/manifested the thought of 'life without God'?

Which was met (by Creator God, and perhaps 'some' of Us) with laughter.

i.e. was met by God with laughter?

Which was met (by Creator God, and perhaps 'some' of Us) with laughter. I interpret that as joy or welcoming of the consideration, and realizing immediately of how impossible that is, though humorous to entertain.

I have played around with this idea a lot. That all of Creation - the universe and all things - is God laughing at God. It's all just one big Joke!

Given the reality that we are God, then 'life without God' is akin to saying we desired to experience existence without Existence. Intellectually, it seems so obvious how not possible all this is. And yet, here we are.

The ultimate paradox at the heart of existence?

But being that freewill means you (as Creator) can manifest whatever thou wilt, then entertaining what was a simple idea became desire to experience the frame of reference of 'life without God.' God didn't prevent what God knows never occurred. And knows Creation is perfect and will realize that the impossible cannot be made possible, other than in an illusion.

But could God just not have decided to 'put the idea to rest immediately' and never even bothered with the illusion?

God is perfect Love

What do you mean by 'perfect Love'?

Given experience of 'existence itself' and what I may refer to as 'daily living' the overcoming is something I may 'fit into my day, when I can' as I have other, more important things, to get on with. All of which are really reinforcing the illusion and my appeal to it. None of which are meaningful, or are given all the meaning they have for me, by me.

Surely the most important thing of all is 'the overcoming'?

I see forgiveness as way to invoke a undoing of the illusion and of turning denial onto itself. In essence, it shortens the time of undoing the illusion and fully realizing it is all undone already.

But if all is illusion, does anything really matter (including 'forgiveness')?

 

[Acim]

Oooo, the line by line quoting. I like that!

I do see these as fundamentally linked.

As above, I think discussion of my initial questions will lead us to the forgiveness topic.

This is good to know. I wasn't sure if that was your intention or you were just lofting softballs to get a discussion, of any sort, going. Glad to understand your intention.

So this is I think what lies at the root of our differences, or at least is intimately linked to those differences, though presumably, from your perspective, if all is illusion, there are no differences. I completely understand where you are coming from. I have toyed with this idea myself for a long time, before rejecting it.

From spiritual perspective, using discernment, there are no differences, though even that would be a bit poor phrasing. Something I am still learning, though I basically understand is that there is one fundamental problem and one solution. Whereas worldly thinking is, consistently, that there are a multitude of problems, each needing their own specifically designed solution.

I'm obviously interested in what lead you to rejecting the idea that the physical is an illusion.

Do you not worry that you might get locked into considering these things intellectually and as a result become 'trapped' in the illusion? Then again, if all is illusion, perhaps none of this - whether one is 'trapped' in the illusion or not - really matters anyway.

From a non-spiritual perspective, or what I'd call normal worldly perspective, I find it super duper easy to conclude that I am trapped to this type of existence, and death is the only way out (though such a perspective would not conclude that an after-life is a given).

From a spiritual perspective, or perhaps I ought to say from my spiritual perspective and experience, I do not worry about being trapped as the illusion is essentially mistaking effects for 'cause' which are truly causeless (hence the illusion).

Helps that I've had what I refer to as 'moment of Grace' that for me lasted weeks, if not months. And has stuck with me in an intellectual way. I am curious if Islam has such a concept for receiving God's grace and/or what some others may call enlightenment? I'm thinking, surely it does, but here's where you can inform me.

My experience was initially induced by sense of submission to God/Holy Spirit, turning a problem, but really my self identity at the time, over to what I then understood to be God. I was pleasantly surprised to receive what was a discernible presence, from within my physical self. I initially took it as spirit is within me physically, though not only spirit, more like me and spirit, that allowed me to have a communication I had not experienced until then. All this was first few hours. But say end of 2nd day, it was far more acute what I was experiencing, and how it impacted my entire being. On hindsight, as I visit that experience, it is (or I am) different in how I process what was going on within me. I'm more intellectual about it now, but at the time, knowledge was at a level that I really never get or witness to (in others). And one thing I distinctly recall, that occurred to be early, is that that knowledge is always 'known' to me/us. Always occurring. Is our reality. But that the intellect, or worldly thinking, slows that (knowledge) down and essentially cherry picks what it chooses to value for consideration. All this is me being kind to 'worldly thinking,' but is also reflective of how my mind was during the experiencing of Grace. I found it very joyful to be in the world and to be with others who I felt did know, but essentially I was picking up on 'they are showing up as if they don't know.' I didn't treat them like - 'you are beneath me, and I can teach you.' Instead, it was the most equal to Who I Am that I have ever treated anyone, experientially, and that was holding them in very very high esteem.

Before we started this thread, I was (may still) going to start a thread about an aspect of that Grace experience, that still fascinates me. That being that every moment was (supremely) welcomed by me. I find that very distinct from my non-Grace induced moments, or normal worldly life. I surely have moments of the day, week, month that I look forward to and am essentially 'welcoming.' But also have moments that I'm not looking forward to, and somewhat loathe what I anticipate may occur. I don't know the percentage of each (like is it 50% welcoming and 50% loathing?), but from Grace experience, it was 100% welcoming. I could say more about this, but may do so in the other thread, or if you ask in this thread. I bring all this up though because this spiritual experience, along with a bunch of (spiritual) stuff that has occurred since, are reasons why I don't worry about being trapped. For sure in any permanent sense. But if your point was that the illusion has 'trappings,' then I agree. As I was writing earlier, there's an appeal factor that I find is constantly underestimated. It is what essentially lead to my 'fall from Grace' as I had appeal for something of the world (an experience) and after experiencing that, had a hint of guilt enter my mind. I recall Spirit suggesting I choose to see it as 'nothing' but instead was quickly latching onto the appeal that 'guilt' had for me in that moment. And like that, the Grace was greatly lessened. Not gone. I don't recognize it as ever fully leaving. But lessened in a way where I was essentially saying to myself that this world has an appeal that Spirit can't understand. On hindsight, that really does humor me, but at the time, it was a bit disconcerting.

From what you have said thus far, I understand God's Kingdom/Heaven as being all there was, is and ever shall be - right? 'We' never left God's Kingdom/Heaven. If this is true, then surely the illusion is also God's Kingdom/Heaven too?

I don't see that as occurring. The illusion is like a veil pulled over our spiritual sight to block us from seeing God's Kingdom all around us, in us, as us. Forgiveness leads to removing blocks that are otherwise held in place by appeal/desire. Such as: I am 'righteous' to hold a grudge against so and so, and nothing can tell me I'm not. Then one day I choose forgiveness instead of that 'righteousness' see the block can be moved, and essentially decide that it no longer appeals to me to hold the grudge.

I am inclined to think the 'when' question is nonsensical too. This is because I see the universe going through an endless series of cycles of 'birth', 'expansion', 'contraction' and 'death'.

Not sure how you are stating these words exactly, but I toyed with this and rejected it. Though would entertain it for discussion purposes as it really doesn't matter to me how long the physical universe has been around me. Intellectually, it fascinates me. Spiritually, it is fairly meaningless.

 

[Acim]

Got so long winded, I had to make 2 posts.....

What does BFD stand for?

Big
F-naughty word
Deal

i.e. God created/manifested the thought of 'life without God'?

i.e. was met by God with laughter?

I draw distinction between Creator God/Father/Mother and Creation/Child/Us. So Child manifested thought of 'life without God' and Mother met that thought with laughter.

I have played around with this idea a lot. That all of Creation - the universe and all things - is God laughing at God. It's all just one big Joke!

Me as well. From my Grace experience, which I'll now freely reference as I feel it helps me convey a sense of wisdom I may not readily be able to explain otherwise, there was joy in all activities. On hindsight, I recall 2 people close to me coming to me with 'own problems,' realizing something was different about me, and essentially testing me. I didn't perceive it that way at the time, because I saw them a) as fully knowing and b) held them in high esteem. The problem they brought up (I don't recall anymore what each was) was not treated by me as a big joke. Perhaps there was a tinge of that, but it was more about me helping them realize they can overcome it, and leading them to see that within themselves. The fascinating thing, on hindsight, is I knew, or anticipated, that they'd be doing this before they even spoke. Didn't know how I'd respond, but was very welcoming of their presentation and honored that I was able to be witness to them and their inherently ability to overcome the perceived problem. I recall, being intellectually honest, that they did recognize the solution was within them, were moved by that realization, but not that anything really changed for them in that moment. I took it then, and now, as me helping to plant a seed for which they would be responsible for it growing. When I've spoken to these same people from my 'normal' perspective, they too can't recall what the problem was. So, not like I had in that moment a magical/wonderful affect on them that left them with lasting impression, though both now do realize that I was in a deeply spiritual mindset at that time.

The ultimate paradox at the heart of existence?

Exactly!

But could God just not have decided to 'put the idea to rest immediately' and never even bothered with the illusion?

Perspective, people, perspective! And by that, I mean God did put the idea to rest immediately and has never even bothered with the illusion. From my theological understandings, experience, and knowledge Creator God does not see the illusion. I feel the Grace experience makes this crystal clear for me, but perhaps challenging to convey, for in my 'normal' perspective, I don't fully get nor find it explainable how Creator God relates to us specifically while we perceive ourselves as in an existence where 'God is not (found).' From the Grace experience, God just continues to share infinite Joy and Love with us, as if that is our Reality, and nothing has changed. From my normal experience, I sometimes think of God as at a distance, on guard a bit, awaiting for us to overcome our allegiance to 'world of separation' and choose God instead.

What do you mean by 'perfect Love'?

Perfect Love. I mean, it is what it is. I can describe it in other terms, but not sure if they grasp it. But I'll try, for the fun of it:
- Perfect Love casts out fear, guilt, dis-ease
- Perfect Love gives everything (that actually exists) to everyone
- Perfect Love knows no sacrifice, would never ask that of anyone
- Perfect Love welcomes all thoughts as opportunities for greater understanding
- Perfect Love overcomes any and all sense of lack
- Perfect Love honors all beings as Creators of Life

Surely the most important thing of all is 'the overcoming'?

I would think so. Yet, with Knowledge that you/we are already Perfect Love, the need for overcoming is moot. Joy, Love and Peace strike me as 'most important things.'

But if all is illusion, does anything really matter (including 'forgiveness')?

Again, Joy, Love and Peace strike me as 'most important things.'

My theological understanding is that forgiveness is an illusion, and not really necessary. Yet, perspective seemingly does matter.

Another thing I got from my experience with Grace, and got this more on hindsight is that for all I know at any given moment (i.e. right now), I'm the only one not experiencing Grace, not having fully forgiven. I see that as very very interesting consideration. Cause a whole lot of times, in spiritual type discussions, people (includes me) use language of "world isn't ready for that." Or speak along lines of "maybe in a future, when we are all more enlightened, things will be different, but right now the world is stuck with (whatever)." Essentially concluding that "it's not just me that needs overcoming, but everyone else." In some ways, that type of thinking is 'worldly perspective' from my intellectual understandings. Yet, from spiritual perspective, I find it far safer to assume I'm the only one, arguably, that is still needing overcoming and right about now is as good as a time as any to work on this, with Spirit.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Oooo, the line by line quoting. I like that!

Glad to hear it! I find it helps me to structure what I'm saying and hopefully do a better job of conveying the key things I am interested in exploring further.

though even that would be a bit poor phrasing.

Yes, it's all a bit complicated, isn't it?

I'm obviously interested in what lead you to rejecting the idea that the physical is an illusion.

It just never sat easy with me.

Helps that I've had what I refer to as 'moment of Grace' that for me lasted weeks, if not months. And has stuck with me in an intellectual way. I am curious if Islam has such a concept for receiving God's grace and/or what some others may call enlightenment? I'm thinking, surely it does, but here's where you can inform me.

Right. So this in many ways directly follows on from what I have just said above. Whilst I was 'stuck' on the 'the physical is illusion' idea, I felt like I was just going round in (intellectually interesting) spiritual circles, but without making any real (spiritual) headway. Once I let go of that idea (and a whole bunch of other things), then came what I refer to as The God/dess' Voices much more loudly and clearly than they had before. I recall The God/dess as having always tried to speak to me, but that I generally tended to try to brush these Voices aside (though I would on occasion pay some attention). I found the things She was saying just too uncomfortable (because they jarred with the 'received wisdom' in too fundamental a way - 'Gnostic' ways of seeing the world aren't generally very well-received by your average Muslim!). But She now speaks to me daily, and I speak back. I must stress that this is my own personal experience of what might be termed grace or enlightenment. I can't comment on what other Muslims think about the kinds of things you and I are speaking of.

Before we started this thread, I was (may still) going to start a thread about an aspect of that Grace experience, that still fascinates me. That being that every moment was (supremely) welcomed by me. I find that very distinct from my non-Grace induced moments, or normal worldly life. I surely have moments of the day, week, month that I look forward to and am essentially 'welcoming.' But also have moments that I'm not looking forward to, and somewhat loathe what I anticipate may occur. I don't know the percentage of each (like is it 50% welcoming and 50% loathing?), but from Grace experience, it was 100% welcoming. I could say more about this, but may do so in the other thread, or if you ask in this thread.

I am certainly interested to hear more, but I think it would be worth starting another thread and opening it up for more general debate to hear what others have to say too (and of course their own personal experiences).

I don't see that as occurring. The illusion is like a veil pulled over our spiritual sight to block us from seeing God's Kingdom all around us, in us, as us.

So God's Kingdom is distinct from the veil?

Not sure how you are stating these words exactly

Creation, death and re-creation of the universe ad infinitum - does that help?

Big
F-naughty word
Deal

Ah, okay, thanks!

I draw distinction between Creator God/Father/Mother and Creation/Child/Us.

What is the relationship between God and God's Kingdom?

Perspective, people, perspective! And by that, I mean God did put the idea to rest immediately and has never even bothered with the illusion. From my theological understandings, experience, and knowledge Creator God does not see the illusion. I feel the Grace experience makes this crystal clear for me, but perhaps challenging to convey, for in my 'normal' perspective, I don't fully get nor find it explainable how Creator God relates to us specifically while we perceive ourselves as in an existence where 'God is not (found).'

God does not see the illusion, but we do?

Perfect Love. I mean, it is what it is. I can describe it in other terms, but not sure if they grasp it. But I'll try, for the fun of it:
- Perfect Love casts out fear, guilt, dis-ease
- Perfect Love gives everything (that actually exists) to everyone
- Perfect Love knows no sacrifice, would never ask that of anyone
- Perfect Love welcomes all thoughts as opportunities for greater understanding
- Perfect Love overcomes any and all sense of lack
- Perfect Love honors all beings as Creators of Life

So God is Perfect Love?

I would think so. Yet, with Knowledge that you/we are already Perfect Love, the need for overcoming is moot.

Right.

Yet, perspective seemingly does matter.

To whom?

 

[Acim]

Right. So this in many ways directly follows on from what I have just said above. Whilst I was 'stuck' on the 'the physical is illusion' idea, I felt like I was just going round in (intellectually interesting) spiritual circles, but without making any real (spiritual) headway. Once I let go of that idea (and a whole bunch of other things), then came what I refer to as The God/dess' Voices much more loudly and clearly than they had before. I recall The God/dess as having always tried to speak to me, but that I generally tended to try to brush these Voices aside (though I would on occasion pay some attention). I found the things She was saying just too uncomfortable (because they jarred with the 'received wisdom' in too fundamental a way - 'Gnostic' ways of seeing the world aren't generally very well-received by your average Muslim!). But She now speaks to me daily, and I speak back. I must stress that this is my own personal experience of what might be termed grace or enlightenment. I can't comment on what other Muslims think about the kinds of things you and I are speaking of.

This helps me, with our conversation, because I too have daily (if not hourly) dialogue with what I simply reference as Spirit. Have for about 10 years now. During my Grace experience, I did not have the type of communication I do now. The Grace experience is, IMO, superior to the dialogue. Due to the level of Knowledge I was consistently experiencing during Grace and due to the exponentially increasing joy I also experienced then.

From worldly perspective, the Grace experience was a bit like drug dealer giving me a taste of ecstasy, and realizing I'd then be hooked for life. Though that analogy comes up short in many ways, but isn't way off base. Also wish to be clear that I don't (intellectually) think of the Grace as ever fully leaving me, and do, even on hindsight, before the Grace experience, realize it is always present. Present right now. Intellectually, I do not think there would be existence (of consciousness) without it.

So God's Kingdom is distinct from the veil?

Yes. The veil is symbolic term for the illusion. The thing is though, being intellectual and using words, i.e. "God's Kingdom" is symbolic. With words and this form of communication, it is unavoidable. But like all symbols, they point to something perceived as actual, or actually existing.

Creation, death and re-creation of the universe ad infinitum - does that help?

It does help in understanding what you meant. I reject it as being helpful or practical to whatever I am up to in this current embodiment. But not like I'm not drawing reference to concepts that aren't exactly pertinent to current life.

I do think universe with no end is challenging for me to reconcile with my theological understandings. And feel that is mostly on me, likely to be unresolved, for me, with dialogue with really anyone (including Spirit). I feel the physical universe must end / disappear into the nothingness from which it came (and actually is right now) when spiritual sight is fully restored. But I do stay open to idea that full restoration of spiritual sight would see universe as it is, though not as it appears (to me) now, physically. I do recognize God's Kingdom is, in Reality, here and now and so imagine sometimes that the Universe is perhaps that, but I'm not 'seeing' it. Perhaps analogy of the Matrix when Neo sees the (machine) world stripped of the physical perception and has the computer code as his vision, which ultimately (in 3rd film) leads him to realize it is all Light that holds the (machine) world together.

What is the relationship between God and God's Kingdom?

Hmmm, good question. I think of God as everywhere God's Kingdom is. Hard to understand that intellectually if attaching any sort of persona to God. Easier to imagine God as personal and residing in some single place within a vast Kingdom, but then arguably 'in the dark' when it comes to things not in His/Her immediate sight. So, that too is challenging to reconcile.

From my Grace experience, I still had the single solitary perspective going on, so not a great way to understand the Kingdom. But given Knowledge I was attuned to, it would be (from that perspective) easy, as in really really easy, to convey how nothing could be hidden from such sight, especially if not limiting Self to a body.

My first response, that I held off with until now, to the inquiry is that God's Kingdom is all that exists in Reality. There is no place / time existing that is not God's Kingdom. Hence, why I find Hell not possible. I see such a conception as illusionary, and honestly not different than what the world is essentially attempting to do, manifest an existence where (apparently) 'God is not.'

God does not see the illusion, but we do?

Correct. And not that 'all of us' do. I imagine most of us do not, and I entertain the notion that I alone see it and no one else (that I perceive) does. I find that oddly helpful because it puts responsibility entirely on me, rather than thinking whole world (of people) has to change and perhaps when I see that starting to occur, then I will (or might) seek to change as well.

I also see this as how forgiveness is technically working. It's entirely about personal responsibility to the fundamental error of choosing to exist where 'God is not (found).' While instead, it routinely is perceived, and certainly by me at times, as if forgiveness is about me and another having a dispute, and I hold a grudge, for which forgiveness is the sane defense. That works for me, and is easier to grasp. But it is a small morsel in the scheme of things, and could then take awhile to overcome all the many many problems I've manifested along the way. I see each time forgiveness is invoked, seen as working, it builds confidence toward the ultimate, personal responsibility of forgiving the fundamental error that drives all aspects of the illusion.

So God is Perfect Love?

Yes.

To whom?

To me/anyone thinking a relationship within the illusion means I must remain separate while love is in process of restoring itself to awareness of each, via forgiveness or remembrance. Forgiveness isn't actually necessary, but from perspective that thinks the physical world / separation is actually existing, it is the only sane function / defense. The illusion that (reasonably) undoes the illusion.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

This helps me, with our conversation, because I too have daily (if not hourly) dialogue with what I simply reference as Spirit. Have for about 10 years now.

Yes, rather more often than daily

The Grace experience is, IMO, superior to the dialogue.

Neither is superior to the other in my experience. Just alternative ways of interacting with God and understanding Reality.

I do think universe with no end is challenging for me to reconcile with my theological understandings. And feel that is mostly on me, likely to be unresolved, for me, with dialogue with really anyone (including Spirit). I feel the physical universe must end / disappear into the nothingness from which it came (and actually is right now) when spiritual sight is fully restored.

But can you not conceive of the (apparent) physical universe ending, and then either re-starting, or a new one beginning, as a(n) (apparently) new apparent (desire to) split from God arises?

I think of God as everywhere God's Kingdom is.

Absolutely.

Hard to understand that intellectually if attaching any sort of persona to God. Easier to imagine God as personal and residing in some single place within a vast Kingdom, but then arguably 'in the dark' when it comes to things not in His/Her immediate sight. So, that too is challenging to reconcile.

Let go of the persona!

My first response, that I held off with until now, to the inquiry is that God's Kingdom is all that exists in Reality.

Again, this is how I see things. But that doesn't prevent me from seeing the multiple manifestations of this Kingdom as real.

There is no place / time existing that is not God's Kingdom. Hence, why I find Hell not possible.

If God/God's Kingdom is Perfect Love, that would indeed appear to contradict the possibility of Hell. But suffering appears to exist - that is what the illusion results in (which would appear to contradict the notion of God being Perfect Love). So perhaps the illusory world is Hell?

Yes. The veil is symbolic term for the illusion.

This seems to imply that there is somewhere where God is not, which in turn appears to contradict the notion that God is everywhere..

Yes

But if God is Perfect Love, why does God allow the suffering that is associated with the illusion?

Forgiveness isn't actually necessary, but from perspective that thinks the physical world / separation is actually existing, it is the only sane function / defense.

But if we must dispense with the notion of an actually existing, separate physical world in order to tear the veil, surely we must dispense with the notion of forgiveness too? Holding onto this technically unnecessary notion just perpetuates the illusion, surely?

 

[Acim]

But can you not conceive of the (apparent) physical universe ending, and then either re-starting, or a new one beginning, as a(n) (apparently) new apparent (desire to) split from God arises?

Yes, I can and have conceived this.

Let go of the persona!

I find that more challenging than the alternative given idea, experience of (ongoing) communication.

Certainly whatever notions/limits I may place upon God (in totality) generally needs to be let go of for me to gain greater understanding. But I've found when I let that go completely, a personal God eventually emerges, based on my needs/desires.

If God/God's Kingdom is Perfect Love, that would indeed appear to contradict the possibility of Hell. But suffering appears to exist - that is what the illusion results in (which would appear to contradict the notion of God being Perfect Love). So perhaps the illusory world is Hell?

Yes, that is what I was implying. The illusory world is hell/hellish.

This seems to imply that there is somewhere where God is not, which in turn appears to contradict the notion that God is everywhere..

But the illusory world is not, thus not really 'anywhere.' Moreover, the illusory world is invoked as a 'place' where God is not / not welcome - even while God as Creation is precisely what is manifesting the illusory world (thus impossible that God is not 'there').

To me, it's like saying I, as dreamer of night dreams, had a dream where I was not present. Given the appearance of the dream events, it could be said - I was not present in any way in that dream. Just have to overlook the fact that I am the one manifesting the dream. Because arguably, I was 'everywhere the dream was.'

But if God is Perfect Love, why does God allow the suffering that is associated with the illusion?

This seems to assume the suffering is 'real.' That's a very very significant assumption. From divine perspective, we are Whole/Holy/Perfect. That has not changed. What has changed is conviction in a thought (fundamental error) that seeks to remove God from 'life/existence.' Again, this is not possible, other than by manifesting an illusion.

So, I think of the inquiry as asking 'why does God allow the illusion to appear to exist (to us)?' And I believe this has to do with free will. I would make clear that for me, free will is not related to choice, but the illusion itself is manifestation that a choice exists (to be without God).

Yet, given that the choice is invoking that which is not actually possible, but is seemingly made possible by illusion (appearance that blocks spiritual sight), then choice itself can be utilized as way around the fundamental error. I believe God provided that immediately when fundamental error was made, and the resolution has never not been present. It may be denied or forgotten, but is closer to us than the nose on our faces.

But if we must dispense with the notion of an actually existing, separate physical world in order to tear the veil, surely we must dispense with the notion of forgiveness too? Holding onto this technically unnecessary notion just perpetuates the illusion, surely?

Correct, when awareness is fully restored to we are within God's Kingdom and never actually left and illusion of separation from God is no longer desired, forgiveness would be dispensed as entirely unnecessary, serving no purpose in God's Kingdom. As long as separation is perceived as existing and a world is manifested where any aspect of Creation chooses to believe this is a place where God is not, then forgiveness is the only thing that actually make sense.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Yes, I can and have conceived this.

And what is your thinking on this idea?

I find that more challenging than the alternative given idea, experience of (ongoing) communication.

I believe both are simultaneously possible.

Certainly whatever notions/limits I may place upon God (in totality) generally needs to be let go of for me to gain greater understanding.

Absolutely agree.

But I've found when I let that go completely, a personal God eventually emerges, based on my needs/desires.

This is an interesting one. Perhaps the next step is to let go of your needs/desires (are these not part of the illusion also?)?

But the illusory world is not, thus not really 'anywhere.' Moreover, the illusory world is invoked as a 'place' where God is not / not welcome - even while God as Creation is precisely what is manifesting the illusory world (thus impossible that God is not 'there').

Hmm. This comes across a little like mental gymnastics to me. But then I suppose you could say the same about my beliefs!

This seems to assume the suffering is 'real.'

But on our parts it is effectively real. Whether it is in Reality real or not, that we perceive it to be real makes it real enough for us. Why does God even allow that (if They are Perfect Love)?

So, I think of the inquiry as asking 'why does God allow the illusion to appear to exist (to us)?'

Yes, that is another way of looking at it.

And I believe this has to do with free will. I would make clear that for me, free will is not related to choice, but the illusion itself is manifestation that a choice exists (to be without God).

You mean God's Free Will?

Correct, when awareness is fully restored to we are within God's Kingdom and never actually left and illusion of separation from God is no longer desired, forgiveness would be dispensed as entirely unnecessary, serving no purpose in God's Kingdom.

So one could be unforgiving in God's Kingdom?

As long as separation is perceived as existing and a world is manifested where any aspect of Creation chooses to believe this is a place where God is not, then forgiveness is the only thing that actually make sense.

This I don't follow. Why is forgiveness the only thing that makes sense? To whom?

 

[Acim]

And what is your thinking on this idea?

Post #10 says what I think.

I believe both are simultaneously possible.

Agreed, but challenging no? To let go of persona of God while also holding to belief that communication with God/Divine is possible. Given that we both participate in the latter, then the challenge I see is letting go of the persona. I see the Divine requesting this, or for us to be open to God is what we currently understand, and more. But when conversing with an earnest seeker who is say agnostic, I find it helps to communicate God as personal/having persona, rather than staying strictly with energy/vibration type stuff.

This is an interesting one. Perhaps the next step is to let go of your needs/desires (are these not part of the illusion also?)?

It is interesting for me. It is obvious, I think to 'let go, let God' be in charge. Especially as that relates to 'problems.'
Yet, I had acute experience about 10 years ago, early in my divine communication, where I was at point of wondering how often to ask for guidance. Initially, that was determined to be: as often as possible. But I got to point where I was wondering if every single second, every single movement needed guidance. It was then (over course of about 15 minutes of communication) that I had acute awareness of Spirit is an "us" and that I am part of Us. Just writing those words out doesn't, I think, communicate the profound realization, but perhaps helps if one is entrenched with getting guidance more than say a couple times a day (or less).

It was around this time I realized Spirit has abundant trust in me as human (or us humans). And wasn't too much longer after this I realized the thing I believe started this debate, when I said: If asking me how I think people should respond to perceived wrongdoing, I would go with whatever way makes most sense to them. Given my theological understandings, it's all going to be fine regardless of how that response appears. Might delay certain theological outcomes (in appearance only) for awhile, but won't lead to downfall of (God's) Reality regardless of the action/response.

Thus forgiveness, not really necessary, but can shorten time of theological outcomes (full return / restoration of awareness of Self as God).

Hmm. This comes across a little like mental gymnastics to me. But then I suppose you could say the same about my beliefs!

I like your response, to acknowledge the mental gymnastics in own beliefs. I find that this is true with all ideologies I'm familiar with. Mental gymnastics are necessary to justify certain axioms as a given/fundamental truth.

But on our parts it is effectively real. Whether it is in Reality real or not, that we perceive it to be real makes it real enough for us. Why does God even allow that (if They are Perfect Love)?

I would say because of Perfect Love it is allowed. I think Knowledge that fully understands we cannot be actually harmed helps (with perspective). I also think there is a whole lot of mitigation that seeks to lessen, arguably eliminate, the effects of separation. I think there is more here than meets the eye, and even most theological understandings. Like, I (or you) may perceive Guides that help us along the way, which serves as a blanket term, but that we each have our own 'trusted guides.' I think there are more than this at work in the process and that another level of spiritual discernment is called for to tune into this. I don't think I could do this justice, even with a wall of text, but I would want to try. Essentially, there is a side of us we think of as dark/bad, and that guides on that end are 'serving no good.' So, going in this direction is I think suggested as 'something to avoid.' Yet, at a certain level of 'return to God,' this stuff cannot be kept hidden as if that is something God can do anything about. It is what I think holds 'final appeal' that keeps us perhaps stuck in illusion.

One way that I routinely use to try and explain this is with the Star Wars saga (hoping you've seen those 6 films). I'm a fan of the prequels, and realize most are not. I see the saga as story of anti-hero that overcomes at the end of his (Anakin's) character arc. But only does this by embracing the (or his) dark side. All other Jedi are oblivious to this and are essentially communicating message of 'stay away from the dark side.' There's obviously a lot of manipulating going on within the story that leads Anakin to believe the dark side will benefit him, but I look at the narrative from perspective of what I think the writer is either trying to get across or does communicate, but may not fully realize what they are communicating. That in order to 'bring balance to the Force' (as is the prophecy within the narrative), a Jedi has to be willing to embrace the dark side. Has to be willing to not have that stay hidden, festering below the surface.

In a sense, what you are asking is why not just have Jedis not go to the dark side and make it all about the (Perfect) Love that Anakin has for his family, which can (and does in the saga) overcome the dark forces seeking to rule the galaxy? And for that story, I'd say because it would've been a boring / much shorter story had it not gone in that direction. LOL, but true! In our shared existence, I think it is deeper than this because one thing I don't feel is easy to do justice to in the saga is that the Jedi are justifying a whole lot of 'self defense' and even 'offensive, violent actions' in the name of 'what is righteous and good.' In our shared existence, one idea that seems to trump anything Love might offer up is "need for self defense." In reality. I feel (very strongly) there is no need for self defense. But then when this is openly debated, people (may include me) will offer up either historical examples or hypotheticals that seek to justify 'self defense.' IMO, one ought to be willing to go down the rabbit hole for what these are all trying to communicate to really discover this 'need' for self defense. In a few words, that logic rests on 'otherwise, you will die.' Us Spiritual types understand death is not an end, not really real. But also get that 'no one wants to die.'

With forgiveness on the table, the exploration on all the nuances takes on a new twist. And essentially comes to realization that the only sane defense (for the self) is forgiveness. This means whatever is the darkest of the dark imaginings is not kept hidden/avoided, and instead is brought to Light, in order for the Self to choose again.

You mean God's Free Will?

What other (Free) Will is there, but God's?

So one could be unforgiving in God's Kingdom?

Explain to me what you mean by 'unforgiving' and just remember that this explanation will be addressed as if it could plausibly be applicable within God's Kingdom.

This I don't follow. Why is forgiveness the only thing that makes sense? To whom?

The Divine Self that once thought it possible to be without God, and/or in a place/space where God was not.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Post #10 says what I think.

I read post #10 as you rejecting the notion of a universe without end. But I am positing something a little different - that the (apparent) universe does in fact come to an (apparent) end, but then (appears to) begin anew, or that a different universe (appears to) begin(s).

Agreed, but challenging no? To let go of persona of God while also holding to belief that communication with God/Divine is possible. Given that we both participate in the latter, then the challenge I see is letting go of the persona.

I'll be honest, this is not something I can ever recall having struggled with.

'let go, let God' be in charge

Absolutely!

I had acute awareness of Spirit is an "us" and that I am part of Us

Just writing those words out doesn't, I think, communicate the profound realization

Might delay certain theological outcomes (in appearance only) for awhile

Is that a problem for God?

Thus forgiveness, not really necessary, but can shorten time of theological outcomes

Again, why is that important?

Mental gymnastics are necessary to justify certain axioms as a given/fundamental truth.

Indeed!

I would say because of Perfect Love it is allowed. I think Knowledge that fully understands we cannot be actually harmed helps (with perspective). I also think there is a whole lot of mitigation that seeks to lessen, arguably eliminate, the effects of separation.

I'm not convinced that that does the work it needs to do - whether or not we are actually harmed, that we feel it arguably means that some suffering has occurred. Why would a God of Perfect Love allow that?

In a sense, what you are asking is why not just have Jedis not go to the dark side and make it all about the (Perfect) Love that Anakin has for his family, which can (and does in the saga) overcome the dark forces seeking to rule the galaxy? And for that story, I'd say because it would've been a boring / much shorter story had it not gone in that direction. LOL, but true!

So God wants a long, exciting story, even if that means suffering? How is that a God of Perfect Love?

With forgiveness on the table, the exploration on all the nuances takes on a new twist. And essentially comes to realization that the only sane defense (for the self) is forgiveness.

Defence against what?

This means whatever is the darkest of the dark imaginings is not kept hidden/avoided, and instead is brought to Light, in order for the Self to choose again.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'for the Self to choose again' - to choose what again and why?

What other (Free) Will is there, but God's?

True dat!

Explain to me what you mean by 'unforgiving'

The opposite of forgiving.

this explanation will be addressed as if it could plausibly be applicable within God's Kingdom.

Is not all possible in God's Kingdom?

The Divine Self that once thought it possible to be without God, and/or in a place/space where God was not.

'Once' thought it was possible. When did this happen and why? And once the thought has come to an end, what after?

 

[Acim]

I read post #10 as you rejecting the notion of a universe without end. But I am positing something a little different - that the (apparent) universe does in fact come to an (apparent) end, but then (appears to) begin anew, or that a different universe (appears to) begin(s).

I said a little more in post #10 than what you are conveying above. But to be more clear, I see universe apparent ending as theologically akin to 'hell is over' and then rebirth as, 'guess what? Hell is back in business.'

My theological understandings de-emphasize the need for existence of physical universe, with I believe good reason. I see what spawned physical universe as manifestation of fundamental error.

I'll be honest, this is not something I can ever recall having struggled with.

That's good. To be clear, I'm talking more of an intellectual struggle. It's not really a spiritual struggle for me, but the logic/rationale of knowing divinity via communication, and then (later) understanding that as 'non personal' when before it is experienced as deeply personal.

Is that a problem for God?

I would say, 'not even a tiny bit.'
For us, that manifested space-time, it may come across as really big deal to realize this (universe of separation) could go on for another million years. Though with discernment, what's a million years within scope of eternity?

Again, why is that important?

Cause we don't really wish to experience separation. Invoking forgiveness makes this (alternative) desire more clear. Shortening time becomes very valuable from a theological perspective.

I'm not convinced that that does the work it needs to do - whether or not we are actually harmed, that we feel it arguably means that some suffering has occurred. Why would a God of Perfect Love allow that?

Then it is your turn to argue for your theological understandings. IOW, let's say we are not actually harmed, but as you say, we feel like we do. Present the points that argue that some suffering has actually occurred (in light of idea that from God's perspective, it has not).

I have explained, I think, why God/Perfect Love allows 'idea of separation' to continue, even while noting that Perfect Love offered most sensible correction to fundamental error at moment the thought first occurred. But, you are saying separation/suffering is at some level real, and I'd like to have that explained. Explored really, because I see you able to fall back on this belief regardless of what I bring up about Love and God's Strength. I truly see that as Omnipotent, yet helps to realize a thing or two about a thing or two before projecting onto any being what 'omnipotence' must look like.

So, your explanations on 'why you think some suffering is arguably occurring / has occurred' I think will help going forward in this debate.

So God wants a long, exciting story, even if that means suffering? How is that a God of Perfect Love?

Challenging to answer this before you respond. But I will anyway. We want suffering, as part of the story of separation. It's an appeal to continue idea of separation as something that is viable. I think your response will inevitably show this, though I think such admission isn't easy to conclude with because I anticipate responses along lines of "no one wants to suffer." I would disagree and I believe I'll be able to make it clear that people/you do desire suffering at a level, if/when we explore the point you find arguable. Had I not spoken to this, I think it may have occurred earlier in our dialogue, but because I see the rationale (of why does suffering occur if God is Love) as inevitable, I don't really mind addressing this, squarely, directly.

Defence against what?

(Own) Self that has faith in separation as a viable existence, worthy of experience. Defense against (own) desire for suffering, guilt and fear.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'for the Self to choose again' - to choose what again and why?

Choose God/Perfect Love. Intellectually, in short words like this, I think of the choice as self evident, as in who wouldn't choose Perfect Love over suffering. But this would be one of those examples where (mere) words may not address the appeal to separation/suffering/guilt/fear sufficiently. Need to be extremely honestly in such understandings. Ultimately, with words, one can claim a whole bunch of things that I may not be able to, here on forum, speak to. Though I think it could help to explore rationale of certain things, like how you want to argue that 'some suffering has occurred.' I'm not going to let that slip on by as if that is 'truth.' I wanna explore that for what I see it as, an appeal to continue separation (or life without God). But, at some level, I may not have what it takes (in the moment) to address all this intellectually. Though, I think it helps that this is being brought up, for Spirit (in Us), is aware of all this rationale well before we've put it into words on a screen. So, I recognize, it's not just 2 personas on a forum working this through.

IOW, not really (separate) me that you are speaking to, providing rationale(s) for justifying certain understandings. Fortunately, I feel very strongly that Guidance within trumps whatever answers/confusion that may be projected onto 'me' this debate. Helps me intellectually to understand where you are coming from in own theological understandings. To further the discussion. But at a certain level where you and I could experience intellectual impasse, I trust Spirit will work with you (and me) to overcome impasse in way that isn't, how you say, guarding certain falsehoods. I find that easy to do, intellectually. Spiritually, for that to occur, a 'whole universe' needs to manifest to give off impression, to own self, that some things can be kept hidden from All Knowing Creator.

The opposite of forgiving.

Is not all possible in God's Kingdom?

I would say no. The impossible is not possible in God's Kingdom. It is not possible to be without God, and still be in God's Kingdom. The latter part 'still be in God's Kingdom' does make it read as if it is possible to be without God. That's the impossible part. But that's what 'world of separation' is precisely offering, and 'appears' to be existing. Lots of conviction in that appearance, so appearance I don't think captures it as acutely as it perhaps could.

So, in Reality, we are still in God's Kingdom, yet given the fundamental error, we are self convinced we are in a whole other existence, where God is not (found). Thus everything that God may do, could be filtered through a whole lot of 'non God traits' (i.e. suffering, guilt, fear). Which is partially why forgiveness (of own Self, conviction in fundamental error) is the only sane defense.

'Once' thought it was possible. When did this happen and why? And once the thought has come to an end, what after?

Addressed this already in post #3.

After is same as before (separation), we exist in Reality with Perfect Love, Eternal Joy and steadfast Peace.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I said a little more in post #10 than what you are conveying above. But to be more clear, I see universe apparent ending as theologically akin to 'hell is over' and then rebirth as, 'guess what? Hell is back in business.'

So no rebirth of the apparent universe, then?

My theological understandings de-emphasize the need for existence of physical universe, with I believe good reason. I see what spawned physical universe as manifestation of fundamental error.

Yes, I can see in greater detail how, now. Thank you for taking the time!

To be clear, I'm talking more of an intellectual struggle. It's not really a spiritual struggle for me, but the logic/rationale of knowing divinity via communication, and then (later) understanding that as 'non personal' when before it is experienced as deeply personal.

But for me it is all deeply personal.

I would say, 'not even a tiny bit.'
For us, that manifested space-time, it may come across as really big deal to realize this (universe of separation) could go on for another million years. Though with discernment, what's a million years within scope of eternity?

Shortening time becomes very valuable from a theological perspective.

So delay in certain theological outcomes is for God not even a tiny bit of a problem, but shortening time of theological outcomes is still very valuable? How so? Very valuable to whom?

Then it is your turn to argue for your theological understandings. IOW, let's say we are not actually harmed, but as you say, we feel like we do. Present the points that argue that some suffering has actually occurred (in light of idea that from God's perspective, it has not).

So I'm very happy for us to debate my theological understandings Let me just say here that I believe that from God's Perspective as well as ours, suffering does occur.

I have explained, I think, why God/Perfect Love allows 'idea of separation' to continue, even while noting that Perfect Love offered most sensible correction to fundamental error at moment the thought first occurred.

That you have, and I thank you for that

But, you are saying separation/suffering is at some level real, and I'd like to have that explained. Explored really, because I see you able to fall back on this belief regardless of what I bring up about Love and God's Strength. I truly see that as Omnipotent, yet helps to realize a thing or two about a thing or two before projecting onto any being what 'omnipotence' must look like.

So, your explanations on 'why you think some suffering is arguably occurring / has occurred' I think will help going forward in this debate.

So as I have said already, I believe that from both God's Perspective and ours suffering occurs. It is not an illusion either for God or for me. It is that part of God that is Satan that is ultimately responsible for the suffering in the world, for the reasons I outlined in my opening statement (post no. 4). The best way I think for us to debate my views further is if you challenge/question me on aspects of what I posted in my opening statement as that links to what I have just said.

We want suffering, as part of the story of separation. It's an appeal to continue idea of separation as something that is viable.

I can see how that makes sense given your worldview. Clearly, the place of suffering in my worldview is rather different.

I think your response will inevitably show this, though I think such admission isn't easy to conclude with because I anticipate responses along lines of "no one wants to suffer."

I will willingly, gladly, go through things that might cause suffering if that is what I need to do to serve The God/dess. However, I will do my best to rise above that suffering, and therefore not actually feel the suffering/suffer (still working on that!).

(Own) Self that has faith in separation as a viable existence, worthy of experience. Defense against (own) desire for suffering, guilt and fear.

Thank you for the further explanation!

Though, I think it helps that this is being brought up, for Spirit (in Us), is aware of all this rationale well before we've put it into words on a screen.

If Spirit (in Us) is aware of all this rationale beforehand, why does it help that this is being brought up?

But at a certain level where you and I could experience intellectual impasse

This may well be where we are headed...But it has been fun!

I trust Spirit will work with you (and me) to overcome impasse

I hope the same!

in way that isn't, how you say, guarding certain falsehoods

I'm afraid I don't follow you here.

I would say no. The impossible is not possible in God's Kingdom. It is not possible to be without God, and still be in God's Kingdom. The latter part 'still be in God's Kingdom' does make it read as if it is possible to be without God. That's the impossible part. But that's what 'world of separation' is precisely offering, and 'appears' to be existing. Lots of conviction in that appearance, so appearance I don't think captures it as acutely as it perhaps could.

I can see what you are saying here. Whilst I talk using pretty different language, I agree that nothing can exist outside God's Kingdom.

So, in Reality, we are still in God's Kingdom, yet given the fundamental error, we are self convinced we are in a whole other existence, where God is not (found). Thus everything that God may do, could be filtered through a whole lot of 'non God traits' (i.e. suffering, guilt, fear). Which is partially why forgiveness (of own Self, conviction in fundamental error) is the only sane defense.

Again, this helps to clarify for me where you are coming from.

After is same as before (separation), we exist in Reality with Perfect Love, Eternal Joy and steadfast Peace.

Whereas I believe that the suffering (which actually exists) continues into Eternity. Which perhaps brings us right back around to the beginning again

 

[Acim]

So no rebirth of the apparent universe, then?

No rebirth of the apparent universe, after it's apparent end, is my opinion.

But for me it is all deeply personal.

Which I see as "letting go" makes for challenging. If it is all deeply personal, then letting that go would appear as - letting all, or for sure part, of your self go. IOW, voiding the deeply personal.

So delay in certain theological outcomes is for God not even a tiny bit of a problem, but shortening time of theological outcomes is still very valuable? How so? Very valuable to whom?

Us, who believe in death of the self, and that our (individual) time to exist is, rather short, in the scheme of things. If life is believed to go on in say an afterlife or reincarnation, then less of a problem, less value (I think) in getting it 'right' in this individual existence. As I believe life never (actually) ends, then its not the death aspect that guides me as much as being very honest (to my own self, foremost) about the value I place in world of separation.

So I'm very happy for us to debate my theological understandings Let me just say here that I believe that from God's Perspective as well as ours, suffering does occur.

So as I have said already, I believe that from both God's Perspective and ours suffering occurs. It is not an illusion either for God or for me. It is that part of God that is Satan that is ultimately responsible for the suffering in the world, for the reasons I outlined in my opening statement (post no. 4). The best way I think for us to debate my views further is if you challenge/question me on aspects of what I posted in my opening statement as that links to what I have just said.

Will do.

So in opening statement (OS), you said (I'm copying and pasting): "The God/dess is One and there is none (nothing) else besides The God/dess."

I have questions right here, but I think they are addressed in following paragraph where you said: "The God/dess is the Unity of all things, but that includes the being known in Christian and Islaamic thought as Satan. This Satan is the Lord of Disunity, the antithesis of Unity. Satan, by definition, cannot but 'break away' from The God/dess. In thus 'separating' from The God/dess, Satan pulls some of The God/dess' spirit(s) 'away', creating the 'early' energetic-material universe in the process, trapping the spirit(s) inside."

I don't really see you explaining this point in way I fully get, such that I see difference in our theological understandings, and so I'll ask here:

- is Reality (i.e. God/dess Kingdom) such that there must be disunity due to existence of Satan?
- If there were no physical universe, would Satan (Lord of Disunity) be on equal footing to the God/dess? I ask this one in vein of how I interpret your theological assertions. That God/dess is all there is, nothing else besides that, such that the God/dess is really yin to Satan's yang?
- I think of the 2nd question as asking the first one in another way, in my attempt to truly understand the nature of God/dess Reality.
- Why is 'separating' in (single) quotes, when the theological assertion you are making, I think, represents that Satan actually exists and by definition must break away from Unity? IOW, is separation not real for you, or is it actual part of Unity?
- At a basic level, I don't get what 'away' means within context of Unity. I think your answering the above questions will help me understand what questions I may have on this point. But, I must say it seems as if you identify/believe there is 'space' that exists that is not part of Unity (unified whole) and that Satan occupies is this space, and that it has eternally existed/exists now, in which God/dess is not. Though you continue in OS, so reasonable for me to include that here as I do see that as addressing this point.

You continued with: "The God/dess responds by infusing tiny sparks of Theirself - spirits - into the early universe to liberate the spirits trapped inside by Satan, breaking it up into the 'later' universe and its various constituent parts. In this sense, The God/dess is the Creator of the universe and all things (including all living things and humankind). Satan and Satan's servants (early entrapped spirits) respond by striving to entrap those spirits within the energetic-material forms they occupy. The God/dess responds by 'sending' yet more spirits into the world to 'do battle' with Satan and their servants and liberate the spirits trapped inside. And so on, ad infinitum. This is what underlies the evolution of the universe and ultimately all living things, including ourselves. Our mission, then, is to liberate the spirits trapped within the energetic-material universe/world (I use the terms universe and world interchangeably). Trouble is, most spirits are pretty weak, forget their true identity and mission, and become trapped (or lost) in the world. Some of these also become willing servants of Satan. So The God/dess 'sends' more, stronger spirits, capable of resisting Satan and their servants, to 'awaken' the entrapped spirits. These are the Angels and the human Messengers and Prophets. Jesus is one such Messenger. Muhammad (pbuh) another (the final one)."

- Side question: Why does Muhammad get the pbuh (peace be upon him) while Jesus does not?
- Given what you've written, I don't see God/dess as Creator of the universe that Satan 'created' by breaking away from the unified whole that is God/dess. So, my question here does deal with the whole 'away' aspect from the unified whole, that is God/dess. And whether you see 'space' or space-time being manifested/created by Satan or by God/dess?
- I find it highly pertinent where you say: "The God/dess responds by 'sending' yet more spirits into the world to 'do battle' with Satan and their servants and liberate the spirits trapped inside." But what I'm reading into this one statement, stems from my not fully understanding the "away" part, and how real that is for you. The way it reads to me, and why I see it as highly pertinent, is that God/dess would then recognize there is disunity, there is a space existing where God/dess is not (and where Satan is away from unity) and God/dess then sends spirits away (from Unity) into this space.
- (Continuing from previous point, but this to me is very significant, needs to stand on its own) The whole 'to do battle' aspect, I see as plausible source of suffering that you consider real. I see it as plausible under this understanding that God/dess is the source of suffering, being that there will inevitably be 'casualties in the battle.
- From my perspective, but trying to fit that with your understandings, I would think God/dess would be 100% certain that all that exists is still unified, regardless of what Satan does. Though, my understanding perhaps falls short as I'm not clear on what you mean by 'away' and how real that is. I would think the spirits are already liberated from God's perspective (being 100% unity) regardless of what Satan does. Yet, if Satan is more yang to God/dess' yang, then it would seem that wherever there is Unity, there must be Disunity, in this version of Reality.
- Non-theist types would, I think, confirm that Jesus and Muhammad are prime examples of how introducing their objectives into the world, does manifest lots of suffering, given that lots of wars have been fought in their names.

Your final words in OS that explain / clarify your worldview say: "Like you, ultimately I see this all as just The God/dess. However, there is no illusion here. Everything is real. The God/dess before The God/dess-minus-the-early-universe-plus-the-early-universe, The God/dess-minus-the-early-universe-plus-the-early-universe and The God/dess-minus-the-early-universe-plus-the-early-universe-transformed-into-the-later-universe, etc., etc. are all The God/dess, but these are all nevertheless different 'forms' of The God/dess. Moreover, The God/dess has a very strong preference for Herself in Her Form before The God/dess-minus-the-early-universe-plus-the-early-universe, when there was no distinction between Her constituent parts. She hates Satan. She is therefore essentially locked in Eternal Battle with Satan. We are the soldiers. The universe is the Battlefield. So The God/dess is Unity yes, but not Universal Love. And Satan and any who serve Satan we (created by The God/dess to battle Satan and their servants for the spirits trapped within the world) should hate (and therefore not forgive)."

- The 'everything is real' part is where I think our debate will continue for awhile. Perhaps not, but now the debate has got interesting. Now, you have questions to address to defend your worldview / theological understandings.
- Side note: I must admit that asking questions is easier than answering them. Though some questions I ask of you, are ones I ought to address as well, and if you feel that way, feel free to ask.
- Yet, our disagreement is the reality of separations vs. my understanding of that as illusion.
- A question from this last paragraph, that is I think another variation of early inquiry is: who created Satan?
- I feel the answer to the above is God/dess, but not sure. If it is this, then my follow up question would be did God/dess create (Lord of) Disunity, and then, or also, do so knowing God/dess would inevitably hate what God/dess created?

- Final word on this: Once I have better understanding of your theological worldview, I'll see how much Unity and Universal Love align. I think they do, even with what you've provided and with how I'm presenting it, but might take us awhile to get there, and I can be patient as the Satan/Disunity stuff isn't vastly different from my theological understandings, other than I see that as illusion whereas you see it as reality. A few responses to certain questions I asked will tell me whether it'll take us a whole lot of debate or just a little for me to get to the Unity equals Love position. When we do get to that point, I believe forgiveness will make more sense. Right now, I can see why you think hatred is the most reasonable response to Satan.

In your most recent post, you asked:

If Spirit (in Us) is aware of all this rationale beforehand, why does it help that this is being brought up?

To put it in way I think you will best understand, it is bringing to Light that we no longer wish to side with Satan, nor keep hidden from God anything that we may think keeps us away from God. It is essentially making it as clear as possible, to God, but foremost to our Self that we wish for God to take charge of what we have identified as our current understanding of 'fundamental problem' with our own existence.

I'm afraid I don't follow you here.

When you responded with this, I hope my previous response (where I said to put it in way I think you will best understand), I hope has you understand or follow what I was getting at before.

Whereas I believe that the suffering (which actually exists) continues into Eternity. Which perhaps brings us right back around to the beginning again

One of the things about debate, that I continue to experience, is the hope that my view will persuade you to consider otherwise. I think tricky part is realizing the other side of the debate is doing the same. And yet, we in this debate both believe in Unity as fundamental force. I don't have desire, at all, to see suffering as eternal, but am open to that as matter of discussion and do think there are things within this discussion/debate that may have me update a few of my understandings.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Which I see as "letting go" makes for challenging. If it is all deeply personal, then letting that go would appear as - letting all, or for sure part, of your self go. IOW, voiding the deeply personal.

So, to clarify, what I am saying is that I see no distinction between hearing The God/dess' Voices speaking to me directly inside my head and experiencing other ways in which I feel the Unity of The God/dess. Both are equally deeply personal to me. That kind of equivalence in how I see The God/dess inside and all around me relating to me (as part of The God/dess) is the one thing I don't think I should let go of!

Us, who believe in death of the self, and that our (individual) time to exist is, rather short, in the scheme of things. If life is believed to go on in say an afterlife or reincarnation, then less of a problem, less value (I think) in getting it 'right' in this individual existence. As I believe life never (actually) ends, then its not the death aspect that guides me as much as being very honest (to my own self, foremost) about the value I place in world of separation.

What value do you place in world of separation?

- is Reality (i.e. God/dess Kingdom) such that there must be disunity due to existence of Satan?

It's more that the Unity of all possible things must include the Force of Disunity (which is Satan).

- If there were no physical universe, would Satan (Lord of Disunity) be on equal footing to the God/dess?

Insofar as Satan is a part of The God/dess (but The God/dess is so much more than Satan), Satan can never be on an equal footing with The God/dess.

That God/dess is all there is, nothing else besides that, such that the God/dess is really yin to Satan's yang?

If Satan is yang (or yin), The God/dess is both yin and yang.

- Why is 'separating' in (single) quotes, when the theological assertion you are making, I think, represents that Satan actually exists and by definition must break away from Unity?

So The God/dess (including Satan) before Satan's 'separation' is all the constituent parts of The God/dess infinitely close together. Satan 'separating' is Satan effectively 'stretching' the constituent parts of The God/dess apart from each other. The God/dess in one form becomes The God/dess in another form. The Unity remains.

IOW, is separation not real for you, or is it actual part of Unity?

An actual part of Unity, as above.

- At a basic level, I don't get what 'away' means within context of Unity. I think your answering the above questions will help me understand what questions I may have on this point. But, I must say it seems as if you identify/believe there is 'space' that exists that is not part of Unity (unified whole) and that Satan occupies is this space, and that it has eternally existed/exists now, in which God/dess is not.

See above.

- Side question: Why does Muhammad get the pbuh (peace be upon him) while Jesus does not?

Argh! The God/dess knows I've tried to avoid this. Because the pbuh is my sending greetings of peace upon Muhammad (pbuh). It doesn't make sense for me to send greetings to myself.

I don't see God/dess as Creator of the universe that Satan 'created' by breaking away from the unified whole that is God/dess.

Insofar as Satan is part of The God/dess, anything that Satan does is ultimately the doing of The God/dess.

So, my question here does deal with the whole 'away' aspect from the unified whole, that is God/dess. And whether you see 'space' or space-time being manifested/created by Satan or by God/dess?

I hope my earlier answers have addressed this.

God/dess would then recognize there is disunity, there is a space existing where God/dess is not (and where Satan is away from unity) and God/dess then sends spirits away (from Unity) into this space.

But there is nowhere that The God/dess is not. It is just The God/dess in different forms - a form before Satan's 'separation' and multiple forms thereafter.

The whole 'to do battle' aspect, I see as plausible source of suffering that you consider real.

Well, for me the suffering stems from us failing to truly understand the Nature of Reality, and as a result becoming attached to the energetic-material forms with which we (our souls) are associated. If we free ourselves from such attachment (as I said, easier said than done!), we will not suffer.

I see it as plausible under this understanding that God/dess is the source of suffering, being that there will inevitably be 'casualties in the battle.

Yup.

I would think God/dess would be 100% certain that all that exists is still unified, regardless of what Satan does.

Right, but there are different forms of Unity, and The Goddess has a strong preference for one form over another.

I would think the spirits are already liberated from God's perspective (being 100% unity) regardless of what Satan does.

The spirits are trapped in a form of Unity that is not The God/dess' preferred form.

Yet, if Satan is more yang to God/dess' yang, then it would seem that wherever there is Unity, there must be Disunity, in this version of Reality.

As I have said above, Satan is a part of The God/dess (i.e. Unity). But yes, as I have also said above, wherever there is Unity there is indeed also Disunity.

- Non-theist types would, I think, confirm that Jesus and Muhammad are prime examples of how introducing their objectives into the world, does manifest lots of suffering, given that lots of wars have been fought in their names.

That is one perspective.

but now the debate has got interesting

Oh yes!

Side note: I must admit that asking questions is easier than answering them

True dat!

- Yet, our disagreement is the reality of separations vs. my understanding of that as illusion.

That's the heart of it.

- A question from this last paragraph, that is I think another variation of early inquiry is: who created Satan?

No-one created Satan. Satan has always existed. And always will (as part of The God/dess).

- I feel the answer to the above is God/dess, but not sure.

Nope.

When you responded with this, I hope my previous response (where I said to put it in way I think you will best understand), I hope has you understand or follow what I was getting at before.

Yup!

One of the things about debate, that I continue to experience, is the hope that my view will persuade you to consider otherwise. I think tricky part is realizing the other side of the debate is doing the same.

 

[Acim]

So, to clarify, what I am saying is that I see no distinction between hearing The God/dess' Voices speaking to me directly inside my head and experiencing other ways in which I feel the Unity of The God/dess. Both are equally deeply personal to me. That kind of equivalence in how I see The God/dess inside and all around me relating to me (as part of The God/dess) is the one thing I don't think I should let go of!

I acknowledge and agree with the last part, but also see it as the (tough) challenge I was getting at before. IMO, it would be even more challenging for you, with the idea that Satan/Lord of Disunity is eternally existing, and/or is real. The whole 'serving Satan' and hearing voices thing strikes me as tricky, and I'm a theist. I'm sure you can imagine that from non-theist perspective, this would be borderline delusional, to think you could rightfully discern between the two. I believe you can, but I do find it questionable. Not so much because of 'you' in particular, but because of belief that the two: unity and disunity are seen as on nearly identical footing in your understanding of Reality.

I do think of my experience with (God's) Grace as better than voice of Spirit communicating essentially answers/responses to any questions I may have. I really didn't have much questioning going on with Grace, whereas I show up routinely as desiring assistance outside of Grace, and Spirit in my experience is never not up for addressing any question/concern I may have. With Grace, there was what I'd say is either no judgment against, or what I'd call 'righteous judgment' toward fellow humans, but foremost my own self. With that, comes Knowledge, in my experience. Knowledge that Perfect Love is the essence of my/our Reality. I currently do not welcome all experiences throughout the day, though technically that's not 100% accurate, and is more of a feeling thing - as in I don't feel I honestly welcome it. So, I draw the distinction, and feel I'm being honest in that distinction. To perhaps help you understand this a little better, I would say imagine being in presence of God/dess vs. entertaining idea that you may be serving Satan, but not sure if you are. Wouldn't you think for you personally, there would be distinction between the two, even while ultimately you are under (ultimate) Guidance of God/dess?

What value do you place in world of separation?

That's always an interesting question, that depends on perspective, or ultimately how I see myself right now. Going with perspective of 'less than full awareness' of Unity/God as only Reality, I would say I place value in the daily priorities I have lined up either for today, this week, this month, or this year. That may be job related, or home chores related, or errands related, but is also related to personal comforts (leisurely) pursuits that I feel will help me to relax more, or escape a bit, or involve deeper thinking, or just learning to laugh a bit.

I recall before my Grace experience, I had an 'identity crisis' of sorts, that compared to the deeply spiritual stuff is a bit embarrassing. Essentially, hoping to stop drinking alcohol/smoking cigarettes, and wondering who am I really if I'm not allowing myself to use/enjoy those things. A bit of wrestling with the addiction (though wasn't really addicted to alcohol, but was part of my routine social life). For me, the idea of stopping using was actually easy. It proved to be that way on hindsight, but I knew it at the time. What I didn't know then was who would I be in relation to others and to myself. At the time, it was more so 'in relation to others,' but I recognize on hindsight that it was (foremost) to myself.

That was a good 2 weeks before the Grace experience (maybe longer, not sure). Not really relevant to the Grace experience, but in a sense it is. The reason I bring it up, is because it was also on day one of Grace experience that I realize there is literally nothing that one gives up with Grace. I honestly am not sure how to present this from my current perspective, because I still intellectually get that it is 'nothing' but the things I did have to give up strike me as at least a little something, intellectually speaking. Like, I had to give up the idea of 'sacrifice' during Grace experience. Intellectually, as if we are talking about someone (else) who has just decided to give up belief in sacrifice, I think of that is easy to understand. Yet, if explored intellectually for more than 1 minute, I think it becomes highly questionable that one could exist on say planet earth, be healthy and not 'sacrifice' anything. Doesn't help, intellectually, that sacrifice is so personal. Not entirely, cause I routinely hear people speak of 'the ultimate sacrifice' so there's that (prime) example. And then there's a bunch of stuff I could convey that I think others could readily relate to. For example, you/I have to sacrifice desire for ongoing good times, with the fact that the physical body does need sleep, or without it, the mind becomes so deprived, it can be detrimental to own self. Or give up eating only sweets because if you do that, your physical health will take a toll.

From my Grace experience, all this would've been found humorous, including 'ultimate sacrifice.' Which in a world where everyone gets ultra serious around time of someone's passing away, ain't easy to understand how humorous it actually is, and even far less easy to understand how/why anyone would behave jovial during say a memorial service for one that has passed away, and made the ultimate sacrifice (assuming they did some action that cost them their lives while another got to live). Thus, at a certain level of 'world of separation' all that 'feeling crap' has to be set aside because we are having a funeral, and it is ultra proper to grieve and be very sad, very serious at that time. I did not experience 'passing away' or funeral during my Grace experience, but because the essence of Grace has stuck with me, when I have attended funerals, I am usually jovial on the inside, knowing the person passed away has literally sacrificed nothing. I don't usually share that understanding with anyone during a memorial service, but would if somehow it became an open speaking session.

In some ways, the way we humans act about death, or in regards to someone we know that has passed is good way to identify the value we have in separation. For myself, that would mean respecting traditions of how I dress when I go to such a service, and without Grace if someone approaches me with overwhelming emotion (great / visible sadness), I may be caught off guard. In that I'm no longer able to see how being jovial makes sense, and am caught up in emotion of grief. Such that the next time I anticipate going to funeral service, I may not be welcoming it, wanting to be confronted with such grief and uncertainty of how I'm supposed to act.

I feel from the intellectual perspective along with what passes for sympathy and empathy, but comes across to me as "PC versions" of those, it isn't easy being 'very honest' with what that means for me, such as the funeral service experience I'm conveying. From Grace experience, I know I would welcome it, and it would be felt as perfect however I chose to act. It would also be felt as acutely honest at a level that I find the intellectual struggles with/wonders about (often).

And that's just one of countless examples, but I chose to go with 'prime example' in helping to make the point a bit more clear. During my Grace experience, I attended to most 'worldly responsibilities' though the ones that were 'personal errands/house chores' I believe fell to the wayside. They were put in what I'd call proper perspective (very low priority) and all leisurely pursuits were framed far differently as there was zero need for escape, entertainment after a tough day, or be in a place where I could think more deeply, laugh a little more - as all of that was where I was at 24/7. Though, not in the intellectual way of understanding all that. For me, it was joy exponentially increasing and the welcoming attitude, all the time.

Perhaps a better example is my plans for today. That entails watching gold cup matchup between Brazil and Germany for soccer game. Watching that entails a few sacrifices in my mind, and yet I very much am welcoming that. If my plans were to abruptly change whereby I am not allowed to watch that game, I'd feel let down and probably wouldn't readily welcome whatever the alternative is. Not to mention, I have intellectual views (mostly lighthearted) going into the game about who I think will win, and why and so am bringing perspective into the game that amounts to 'judgment of how I see it going.' Perceived as how I see the game going between the two teams, or game analysis. But really is foremost about me, though I'm not readily looking at it that way, thus not being fully honest.

Hope that all makes sense!

And because that's a wall of text, I'm compelled to address the rest of your post in another post.