What Really Was The Good News?

What was the good news and where did it go?

The awareness of full consciousness—that same ethereal beginning that has been the primer for many religions, cultures, counter cultures, shaman, and silent men and women since time immemorial, has dominated the landscape of thought since man could put into words.

Since the religion is now and forever about following Jesus instead of his message, shows his followers did not understand “the good news” any more than the modern day followers of Jesus. Then, shortly after his death, the intellectual transfer to the stupor of faith, counterfeited the mystery to carefully guard the irrelevance of the church. Now “ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth“. Welcome to belief in faith.

The early church opted for idol worship and sequestered Jesus—the only true son of god, which stopped the real gospel in its tracks. We certainly can’t have anyone else running around like gods, can we? So for now we simply have been persuaded we can never measure up, relegating ourselves to hoping for grace—which was never the point. But alas, now you can never compare yourself to Jesus no matter what the effort—or be the heretic, for only He and god are one, but that too, was never the point.

When Christianity institutionalized Jesus as the one, it essentially ensured castration—the gospel will never usher in the kingdom of god on earth—so we have look elsewhere.

So what secret was he trying to reveal? It had to be subtle, for like so many others that claimed I AM were put to death by revealing what we really are—showing how ignorance can easily blaspheme the truth.

 John 10:34—”Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the a Son of God?” (In the Greek he is a son of God, not the son of god. Italics in the KJV delineates translator interpolation, not emphasis—and in this case incorrectly. A son of god means our immortal existence is a coexistence of equals, not a monarchy. We are all of the same status, and deep down I think most of us (you) know this.

The term “son of god” in the original context implies “equal in nature and authority to god”.

Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

The ultimate reality—that all of us are each the cosmic whole. The great mystics have all seen this. This is the central mystery Jesus wanted us to see.

Although writers are constrained by the language and religious bias of their culture (using familiar terms like father, and He) Jesus was one who knew the game and that universal and everlasting life is wonderfully crafted and masterfully—us

This ideal state of intellectual and ethereal perfection can be achieved by mankind through purely human means that takes no belief to achieve—for it is a method that can be taught. But who will listen? Certainly not me, the sinner. I could never be like god, so follow the leader we must?

But the things he did we were also to do—“even greater things than these“, but we’ll never do it when we substitute our true nature for faith and idol worship.

So here we are. Here I AM, as those who know have known for a long time. There is no monarchial boss or patriarchal authority. It is an endless happening. Life is what we do. It is what we are.

The good news is not simply that Jesus was a son of god, but to open everyone’s eyes that they are too. Equal measures of the whole thing. I and the ethereal are one. It doesn’t help that the word ‘God’ has been hijacked to mean what it means. If we’re going to participate as who we actually are, a new word would help.

If I were to believe in god, I never will see it nor be it.

The Christian definitions of god and father hierarchy are at odds with the experience. If you were to get a peek behind the curtain and see that it is you—you are the whole thing, you would look at people differently, knowing full well that they are too, but they haven’t learned how to grasp it? Wouldn’t that make you smile, knowing how simply and effectively we have fooled ourselves for the moment? That there is no hierarchy or intimate bosses taking notes on your behavior?

But really, this is all a necessary component of the physical experience. If everybody recognized this we’d have the kingdom of god on earth. That would be silly to have it “be done on earth as it is in heaven”. So we stick with faith and worship the messenger instead of experience the whole of the message. It can’t possibly be our doing, can it? That would mean personal responsibility. We’d rather follow the gurus which is obvious because that’s what humans do—look outside themselves for validation.

Making Neural Con ections

How intensional omissions create a more powerful narrative and induce greater faith.

Missing part of the story is what we do as humans. No worries, we can fill in the __________ fairly easily with our imaginations. Even with ideas a bit more complex, a normal person will assume conclusions. In writing, drawing conclusions for your audience is un-engaging. For maximum _________, its best to leave some gaps in the story, even implied gaps.

Leaving blank spaces that have multiple possibilities is even more effective, stimulating the most possible conjecture. Intensional gapping works best with religious faith. Its ability to generate the highest levels of presupposition is unmatched by any other topic. Whenever an author can get the audience to fill in the blanks for him, the missing information can stir a life of circuitous inquiry—prime spawning ground for deeper religious conviction and faith. The more holes the better. Even more effective is multiple versions with varying gaps (the gospels) where differing audiences can fill the holes masterfully as inspiration the imagination allows.

While there are many holes, some have been philosophically filled with more ambiguity. The ecumenical councils are heralded as founding precepts of faith, while all along the first meeting took place to ultimately define the nature of god. Why? They didn’t know. Adding a word at will is also a neat trick. Take the word Filioque,(1) for example. Initially rejected after the first ecumenical council, then 700 years later the Catholic Church adopted it as truth. The council at nicea was also set nearly 400 years after the supposed Christ. Think about that! Can you tell me something accurate about a little known family member from the 1600’s, what he specifically said, his deeds, headcounts at sermons, and his travels? No! So you make it up and call it god. And to really make it convincing, the record must be gathered from sources that never personally knew the individual. Masterful!

(1) Filioque is a term that creatively determined that the Holy Spirit not only came from the father, but also the son. It was a neat add-on that immediately divided the western churches and eastern churches. It was a masterful stroke injecting immediate conjecture that keeps the churches debating the nature of a fictional character—God. Will humanity ever learn we’ve constructed that too?

Thanks for the meme JZ

Nothing’s Changed. All is Well. Well?

The manifesto of the LDS church, says “The Lord will never permit any Prophet of this Church to lead you astray”. I guess not allowing children of gay couples to be members of the church slips in behind this prophecy. It is hurtful, and one of many missteps of the church leadership. Spending most of my life in the church, hearing is believing when it comes to the faith, and only approved sources will suffice. I have been out a few years now, but yesterday I ran across this thread on FB, and the sheep are alive and well. These comments are in response to a book recently published about problems with Mormon culture.

“Read the conference talks and follow church leaders first”

“Honestly, I think you’re getting a bit big for your britches. I am looking for messengers from my father. I’ll be passing on this one and sticking to authorized church publications”

“None of you seem to understand anything about the problem with this … these writings are identifying a perceived issue with LDS society / culture and pronouncing a fix … This is exactly squarely in the realm of why we have a prophet and apostles … it is their key job … Do any of you ever wonder why a man not called to the position would choose to do the exact job our church leaders are called to do … To espouse this mans work is a full on admission that our leaders and by extension Jesus Christ failed to give us “ enough “ information or the “ whole “ story … Were I to write a book or dissertation the last place on earth I would seek a subject is in the realm squarely where our church leaders operate … like I would have some “ additional “ information to add … but this is where this man feels he needs to operate”

Heaven forbid if your narrow bubble of belief should be challenged, scrutinized, or improved upon. If and when you decide to take a real and honest look at what your doing, leave me a note so I can help with your new atheist blog.