Why did God need to sacrifice Jesus to forgive sin?

Does god give life or does god charge for life?

People were born obviously before jesus was crucified. Was the crucifixion necessary for life, or just necessary to fulfill a metaphorical model.

I am telling you that the concept of the paschal lamb is an attempt to synthesize meaning from an apparently incomprehensible act, i.e. how is it possible that the messiah can be killed in this manner, if he is the messiah.

The disciples didn't need the story, they witnessed him alive after crucifixion.
If they had not, then perhaps they would have waited until paul told the story leaning to cultural ritual for explanation. It would have been a place to put confusion.


I will ask the question again that I asked before.
What is your feeling for christ, are you pleased that he was crucified?

 

In Aztec-Toltec tradition, a young man was raised from birth to be an ixiptla (god incarnate)of Tezcatlipoca. Later in life, after growing up and spending a year being adored by the public, he climbed a pyramid, according to his training and offered himself to the priests of Tezcatlipoca, who cut out his heart, providing toanali (life energy from blood) to sustain the gods, and liberating the istli (trapped fragment of solar heart energy) which took its flight home. Was he sacrificed? If so, who did it? Tezcatlipoca? The priests? The Ixiptla himself? All of the above?

 

What is most likely waterbrother, that god is mistaken in his creations, or man is mistaken about god?

 

Dejavu, if perception is knowledge then everything that waterbrother reports is true and we are mistaken for questioning the veracity of his perceptions.

 

thedope:

You here differentiate between the accumulative production of perception and what you perceive to be its completion in itself, ie. knowledge? The differentiation does not make knowledge anything more or less than perception. Knowledge is never anything but the ongoing state of knowing, it is always perceived. Knowledge is perception.

It is really only because I can perceive myself to know something that I can know it. From the bottom up or the top down.

You dismiss the diversification of perception? The degrees of complexity? Only if knowledge were not subject to expansion would what you are saying be the case. You argue that our capacity to be mistaken in our perception, means perception is not knowledge. Only if in knowing something, we didn't also have to believe it known, would what you are saying be the case. Knowledge is not apart from knowing. eg. one may not impart it to record, but through it. There is no sense in which perception and knowledge are not found synonymous.

 

From that example. Love is condition through and through. Love does seek its own, knowing only its own. I've heard 'Christians' say that love grows. They're not wrong.

 

Actually I differentiate between the accumulative production of knowledge and the percepts or perceptions that lead to it. A percept is a hypothesis about the world through which we must move. It is the synthesis between perception and active being that improves overt understanding but it is the union of subject and object that is knowledge. Thou art that. Knowledge is being shared. I know my tree self, etc..

How can you be sure, if perception is not knowledge?

Our native state is without modulation, unabated joy.

We do not recognize it at at large and very rarely specifically.

We have not known ourselves, although we perceive much that is true and much that is not.

The learning of our universal curriculum is like a mustard seed. starting out as the smallest of seeds it grows into the largest of shrubs, until the birds of the air come to make their nests in the shade of it's branches, god takes the last step so to speak and where knowledge is, perception is no longer needed.

We are not meant for occasional happiness and if we had known the mechanism of happiness then we would have not grown unhappy.

 

Okiefreak:

Beside the point. Was it necessary? The fact of its occurrence does not make it needful. The past is not needful, no matter that one may "argue" for it as necessity. Nor the future. And this is the most interesting thing; neither is the present. The moment is only ever actual, but in no way necessary. To make it desirable is to reconcile all that is past. To affirm the future, as opposed to dictating it by what passes for currency.

 

The awareness of the love that we are increases as we remove the perceptual barriers we have erected against it. Love does not seek it's own but it does extend itself through invitation.

 

I wanted to add that all expressions of love are maximal. Love is not bound by any limit.

 

Your heart is beating. You know how to make your heart beat, but you don't perceive how you do it. Representational understanding is not the same as being in the moment.

 

thedope:

The differentiation does not stop knowledge being perception.

I can't be, but I can be sure that it is.

Now you're talking my language. :-D ( apart from the bit about it being without modulation. )

We have, but not all up, no.

You are afraid we may not be able to take the step ourselves? Afraid it really is a last step? Afraid to displace yourself by not giving pride of place over to a conceptual 'highest', afraid of...the highest? I don't believe you are. You were made for joy.

Your patience is phenomenal, but it's really going to have to become infinite for you to pull that one off, or put it on, what have you. You make perception appear to be a 'task', a 'burden' -- a trial. I don't beg to differ. I simply differ. :-D

Needed? No, you're right. Joy wants itself.

We alone make meaning. To give the mechanics of happiness over to 'god' is to lie defeated in looking back over our growth.

Truth.

Said extension is a seeking, of itself.

Yes, love is boundless, and not subject to condition, but is condition itself, its own object.

If I know, then I perceive I know. Knowledge is always perceived.

Who says it is? The moment is not knowledge itself, knowledge is its appreciation. Knowledge is knowing. Knowledge is momentous.

 

I think you confuse cognition with perception. Cognition, doesn't need stimulus, only memory, recognition.

Some things you cannot be sure of based of perception, because you just don't know.

Without modulation, unabated. Without modulation because it cannot be contained nor is such your desire.

I have seen in ecstatic mystical state the proportions of the cosmos and my inheritance of it and I was overwhelming impressed with two things, my sense of tremendous spontaneous gratitude. And the other, I recognized that if I had never known body, I would not have missed a thing.

Inwardly, I had absolutely no sensation of my body in the sense of gravitationally affected mass. Dissociated from physical sensation but absolutely present to clarity. Outwardly, I appeared to my wife to be in dire distress. She told me after words she was convinced I was dying. I could hear here telling me to get up, begging me to get up because she needed to take me to the hospital. I kept telling her everything was fine but she continued on as though she hadn't heard me. I was reluctant to interrupt my attention to this, but finally after much impassioned pleading by my wife, I got up. i thought the spell would be broken immediately, but as I moved and walked I could not fell my feet touching the ground. After a short while as we were walking up a hill she suddenly told me to sit down and eat this as she handed me an energy bar. When I began to eat is when the experience ended, But the event is blazed into my memory and I can refer to it from time to time.

 

No silly, i said so to speak. Like the event horizon of a black hole, you come to a certain point and it sucks you in, an inner shift happens and new paradigms emerge.

Love is ubiquitous. It is extend to the individual consciousness by the invitation of that individual consciousness. Love does not overwhelm or override.

It is sensational and sensation is not condition for you until you describe sensation. Conditional things are conditional. There is no condition that defines love.

It is true that condition can be considered a state of being, but loves being is unconditional.

It suddenly occurs to me that it is not semantics we are dealing with but syntax. All that can be known is not immediately perceptible.
The storage and transmission of information is knowledge but this occurs without our perception of it when it is not in our perceptual field. The universe is information exchange.

Barney walked down the street yesterday, did you see him?

Knowledge is being shared, communion.

 

to put it quite simply IT (meaning "god" of course) didn't NEED to do anything of the sort. nor is that the real story of what happened. this story that was built around the incident likely was however, because sacrifice was a ritual familiar and understood by the people to whom it was at first addressed.

 

thedope:

Memory and recognitions are stimuli.

My not knowing something is my not being able to perceive it.

Unabated joy is not without modulation. It remains what it is but is nevertheless in motion. Containment has nothing to do with it.

Yes. You would not have. Nor would you have ever known a thing, or had that recognition.

I remember you alluding to this once before. Thanks for sharing it. My response at the time was to note that there is no 'out' of body experience, only inter-body experience.

Now this is a change, after your saying there are no individuals!
:-D
Loves seeking expression, its self-extension, does override and overwhelm lower feeling. That is how it grows. Its ubiquity is to life.

Not so. Love is sensation yes, but its condition doesn't hang on description. As you say, the self invites it. The self wants to become it.

The human condition defines it. Granted it has to go on defining it, but I trust that doesn't pose a problem for you. :-D Loves overcoming, its overwhelm, is only our self-overcoming.

Is it in realizing humanity that we tire of conceiving god, and create the superhuman?

No, it is conditional upon being, upon itself, regardless that we make it so, hence condition through and through. Love is in extension. Condition is not necessarily limitation. Existence conditions itself. As you say, nothing stands alone. I questioned that, asking how the universe then exists in itself, but your reply, "diversification" answered infinitely the singularity of my query.

It is both. Immediacy abounds at every stage of perception. The universe is instantaneous.

To perceive that there appear to be limits to our perception is not the end of perception, is not the end of our knowledge. We both know the universe is not an all-seeing eye. Nor is it any sort of exchange, having once informed ourselves that we're made up of it. We perceive that infinity may be inferred, and ask why we may not then realize eternity in ourselves. The universe is an idea in as much as it is a reality.

Knowledge is being shared, it is being perceived.

 

Hi themnax,

I see you understand that love needn't be blind.

 

They are not the combination of distal and proximal stimuli of perception.

You cannot perceive if you are not first knowing, in your terms, unless you are able to perceive, unless you have being that is shared.

Modulate does not mean to move, it means to vary wave form. It does not oscillate between low and high. All expressions of love are maximal.

Here is a similar statement. Reality is non-local, nor is it remote.

Put it another way, there is nothing to find here.

And I did not say, out of body, I said totally dissociated from any sensation of my body. I just couldn't feel it. If you touched me, I couldn't feel it. I could not feel my feet touching the ground. I could not feel the weight of my form. No physical sensation, only mental clarity. The only way I recognized the "feeling" of myself, was in the striking comparison to the feelings I remembered.

As far as inter-body experience. There are many different platforms. How do you explain communication with the dis incorporated?

I am beginning to think you just want me for my bod.

Individual aspects of self. Remember I talked about needing to develop a permanent intent, I am, to maintain continuity across time, or across lifetimes. Other wise you are variously reassembled. Now you talk about how you prefer to be close to your loved ones in form. I too prefer to be close to my beloved in form, which is transcendental.
We have become shattered in ourselves, compartmentalized through the brutality of accusation. These compartments have no windows into each other, so without sharing specifically, consciously, they never meet. Where one has asserted itself, the other is not. This is what makes crimes of passion possible, makes it possible to kill that which in your right mind you would love.

Now I think you are relying on formula. There are no lower feelings only misconceptions about self. The truth dispels illusion. Love is not a force that overwhelms, love is a force that liberates.

Only the dissociated self. The self that has it gives it away.

There is that phrase again, "the body is in more than a billion places".
I like it!

No percept on it's own represents knowledge. The kind of cognition you are referring consists of perceptual sets. Our nervous accounting is modular. Perception is not knowledge. Perception is transduction.

Exactly, the extent at which you are confined to particular body is the extent to which you identify with it.

Knowledge is being shared whether or not perceived, unless you now assert that rocks talk to each other, in which case this will be fun.

 

Be nice.

 

Love is not at all blind being vision of the greatest acuity.

If the eye be sound, the whole body will be full of light.