@gandywhite - 

Yes, I know plenty of them. They're everywhere. As the saying goes, Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink. Unfortunately many perish of thirst because the water doesn't come from the spigot from which they wish to drink. Thank you for visiting and reading. Thank you for caring enough to comment. I'm thinking perhaps this was not the place to post this essay. *smile* One never knows.

@CormackMcKinney - 

Very easily though it has taken me a very long time to be able to make sense of that. Since it has taken me over four decades of prayer, meditation, practice and study it may seem obvious to you that to answer your question would take a long time, many words and a lot of interaction. Then the question wouldn't be answered for anyone except me or someone who has already made sense of it, as you suggest. Since this isn't the place for such things, well, you know the rest. Also, as WordJames has recently said, and I can say it in terms that are more comfortable for you if the need arises, The big illusion is that there is such a thing as truth. Interestingly he also says, The big illusion is that we can use our primitive and inadequate abilities to adequately describe anything. Truth, or the real world, has many dimensions and to describe an n-dimensional universe requires at least n+1 dimensions. The two statements look better together than they do separated by all the other text. He is right. There are many truths because there are many perceptions of truth and many dimensions or levels of truth. Our problem is we only know what we know, which isn't a hell of a lot, though we're arrogant enough to believe we know, or could know nearly everything. This is total horse manure but not to us. We're fanatical believers in our own delusion and we'll crack skulls to prove it.

Nice to hear from you Cormack. I'd love to talk to you face to face some day if you ever get down this way (Vista).

@CormackMcKinney - 

Wow! There are quite a few assumptions in there, Cormack. If we were going to dialog in any meaningful way it seems to me it would behoove us to put aside our preconceived notions and assumptions. Is that something you think you can do?

First off, you can believe something that isn't true. The Truth may be known, even if it can't be expressed in terms that can make it knowable to others. Perhaps in our current condition we can't know anything objectively but that doesn't mean we can't alter our current condition and get ourselves into a better state where we could know something objectively. Of course the word "we" is all we've got in our current state and it wouldn't necessarily translate in a more objective state. Therefore, the words we use here in this state might not convey the right meanings in more objective states.

The reason you're unsure of how I make sense of that information is because I haven't attempted to tell you. You say, Whether our functional understanding is objectively true or not, no one can know for sure. Are you saying that Jesus didn't know for sure? Or did you mean no one else? Though it may appear to you that I make sense of life by belittling sense and that may be true. I wouldn't say it that way but I don't have your understanding and I can't give you mine. You'd have to earn that. I don't use solely sense or belief to make sense of life. Life cannot be made sense of in terms of itself, in my experience. There must be something from outside our life system. For you that might be Christianity. It might also be for me but I assure you that word Christianity does not mean to you what it means to me. You've made it fairly clear over the years what it means to you. I have not even begun to express what it means to me. Therefore, you don't know what it means to me. Since we have entirely different meanings for the words we use I can't see how we can say much to each other that could be understood until we could come to some kind of common ground about the words we use. Since this is more of a lark to you than it is to me I doubt you're going to put forth anything approaching the amount of effort it would take to do that. You've got all the answers you can hold. To get more you're going to have to change. I don't get that you're interested in changing. I get that you're more interested in getting others to be like you. I have no interest in that though I'm certain you are as fine a human being as any other on this mud ball flying through space. Please don't take offense as I have nothing but affection for you. I gave you an invitation. You gave me your response. I don't see what else there is to talk about but I'm always open to anything you have to say because I respect your perseverance and right to know more than you currently know.

@CormackMcKinney - 

You have not slighted me in any way so there is no need for me to forgive you. You don't owe me anything. As I said, I have great affection for you and love covers a multitude of sins. Yours and mine. *smile* I can't help you understand me. What would be the point? The only thing worthy of your effort is to understand yourself in relationship to your aim, your ultimate aim, which I take it would be God realization. If it's easier for you to accept that in other terms then the aim of you being with God for eternity. If I understand you at all that would roughly verbalize your ultimate aim. All other aims would be swallowed up in that one. In other words, if you were to attain your ultimate aim you would have to attain all other lesser or stepping aims to reach that one. For you, in your belief system, that would be to allow your Savior to renew your mind and heart through the Word. That would mean the cleansing of your mind and heart so that you could begin to see God. Blessed are the pure in heart for they will see God. I use the word God in the way you generally mean it when you speak it, not necessarily in the way I might mean it when I spoke it. When I say Savior I mean what you mean when you say it--Jesus. When I say Jesus I do not necessarily mean what you mean anymore than when I say mother I mean what you mean when you say mother. We do not share a common mother in the ordinary meaning of the word. There is another meaning for mother that we could both share, but that's not important now.

Perhaps your understanding hasn't changed as much as matured over the years. You still have the same basic understanding that you had when I met you. The difference is it is developing. You can understand more or less, better or worse, but it can still be the same basic form of understanding. It's like consciousness. It's meaningless unless you are conscious of something. Knowledge puffs up. May I suggest you try to apply the knowledge you've already tested and accepted as true? Your balance is shifting from your first education to your second education. The first education is the one we receive from the world. The second education is an elective. You don't need it to die. You do need it to die well. The two overlap, that's a given and it would not serve you to pay too close attention to the words but rather try to catch the meaning behind the words. This is hard when you're involved in your first education because that's all there is--words with very little real meaning behind them. That's why your teachers can talk about things they know nothing about. It's all first education, which is necessary.

You say Jesus was/is divine. I don't know what you mean by that. Probably what "Christians" mean by that when they say it but I don't know so I'll let you clarify it if you choose to do so. If there is no aspect of the divine in human beings then Jesus was a liar, which has not been my experience of him. He was murdered for making himself equal with God by calling himself a son of God. I can understand why you might find yourself reluctant to embrace all of what he said instead of just what the church fathers emphasize. He's crucified all day long by "Christians". I don't doubt they might find it easy to crucify him. "Whatever you do to the least of these you do to me." If you could drop your "Christian" belief system for a while you might make better progress. It's not that there's anything wrong with it. It's necessary. It's your mother in a way. It nourishes and protects you like a mother. It's like a chrysalis in that it is the protective covering in which you are able to develop. To fully develop, to be all that you can be, to be twice born you will shed it. I am aware of the exoteric form of second birth but that's not what I'm talking about. It's not some ritual of repeating incantations or special phrases. Nor is it "believing in your heart" only. We have a little trouble on this planet accepting a God bigger than our own limited understanding. Given that fact it follows that we also have trouble thinking that we understand what is required of us to have a greater understanding. If you've never read, The Practice of the Presence of God by Brother Lawrence, may I suggest you acquire a copy and eat it, take it inside and make it a part of your being?

You apparently seem to be of the opinion that you are "saved" and that a few of your closest, most beloved friends are not because they are not doing the things you think they need to do to be "saved". To be honest, it's not even what you think. The thoughts and the system to which you have subscribed did not originate with you or with Jesus. They are the commandments of men and you have acquired them from the time you were a very small boy. You don't know what Jesus said because you weren't there. What you have, the Gospels, have been so edited by selfish, conniving men that the miracle of them is that anything at all of their virtue is still hidden in them. You do not have the key to open them so you rely on vain repetition in an attempt to sooth your troubled mind. It is your heart to which they must speak, not your head. Why else would you worry about what might become of your friends? What is that to you? I don't mean to be callous I'm just quoting your Savior when he told Peter not to worry about what John was going to do or not do. It is our duty to put our own house in order before we concern ourselves with others. Put another way, remove the log from your own eye before attempting to remove the speck from your brother's eye. Again, I am not being callous but rather speaking in the same spirit in which it was spoken. The "Christian" world has devolved into a very violent place because people know the words, have some knowledge but cannot do the least little bit of it. "If you love me, obey my commandments" has been morphed and diluted to mean something unworthy of the author. I know you know that but you're still struggling with that world as if you were afraid to stray too far from it for fear of losing something. How can that be if you trust your Savior? Did he not accept you with open arms when you were not worthy? Why would he abandon you if you strayed looking for a better understanding and relationship with him by understanding yourself better? If you don't know yourself, and I assure you you do not, how can you offer yourself a living sacrifice? Holy is whole. You are not whole, you don't have one will and you have not been transformed by the renewing of your mind. All that is still in front of you, if you choose to follow him. If he sends you to a certain man will you go or will you first lean to your own understanding and judge whether or not the certain man is someone you can trust? You don't know your Savior because you don't know yourself. Cormack, this is not about me. This is about you. The world's way is to kill the messenger if we don't like the message. We don't like the message. We kill the messengers all day long and wander about in our darkness because we refuse to drink if the water doesn't come from the "right" well. We ask amiss and that's why we don't receive. Yet, even with all that against us it is the Father's good pleasure to give us the kingdom. He will find a way when we block all of his attempts to do so. I'd really rather take this private as I am not interested in parading this in front of a hostile world who will not understand because they hate the light.