![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 38. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Todd on February 19, 2003, at 23:46:38
What do y'all think of that idea?
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2003, at 6:07:45
In reply to We Are All Jesus, posted by Todd on February 19, 2003, at 23:46:38
Todd,
You wrote,[...we are all jesus....what do you think of that idea?....].
What you have written is something that I could expond on for months. But if you could continue, then I will be glad to read your posts about your subject line.
Lou
Posted by rayww on February 20, 2003, at 8:57:27
In reply to We Are All Jesus, posted by Todd on February 19, 2003, at 23:46:38
> What do y'all think of that idea?
When we place "what would Jesus do" in the equasion as we calculate decisions, we become Jesus' hands doing Jesus' work.
Posted by Todd on February 20, 2003, at 10:38:28
In reply to Re: We Are All Jesus, posted by rayww on February 20, 2003, at 8:57:27
Well, I mean, what would the point of Christianity be if we weren't all indeed Jesus. At our very core. But we have somehow become distorted and "diconnected" from our inner divinity.
Just throwing in a few pieces of kindling to see if we can get a nice, cozy fire burning here.
Posted by rayww on February 20, 2003, at 10:51:20
In reply to Re: We Are All Jesus, posted by Todd on February 20, 2003, at 10:38:28
> Just throwing in a few pieces of kindling to see if we can get a nice, cozy fire burning here.All it takes is a spark.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2003, at 10:51:43
In reply to Re: We Are All Jesus, posted by Todd on February 20, 2003, at 10:38:28
Todd,
You wrote,[...we have... become... disconnected from our {inner divinity}...].
The concept of,[...being one with God...] is what I have been writing about here in relating my spiritual experiance. (7 Gates)
This concept is called [Theosis]. If that is what you are referring to, then I would be excited to hear your input on this topic. But before you go on, could you change your subject line to read:[ We are all jesus {christ}] from ,[we are all {jesus}]. If you could, then that would change this discussion radically. If you want to leave your subject line as it is, then that could be a different topic.
Lou
Posted by rayww on February 20, 2003, at 14:36:10
In reply to Re: We Are All Jesus » Todd, posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2003, at 10:51:43
> Todd,
> You wrote,[...we have... become... disconnected from our {inner divinity}...].
> The concept of,[...being one with God...] is what I have been writing about here in relating my spiritual experiance. (7 Gates)
> This concept is called [Theosis]. If that is what you are referring to, then I would be excited to hear your input on this topic. But before you go on, could you change your subject line to read:[ We are all jesus {christ}] from ,[we are all {jesus}]. If you could, then that would change this discussion radically. If you want to leave your subject line as it is, then that could be a different topic.
> LouDifferent topic:
I don't understand your point Lou. But to see you write the words, "Jesus Christ" gives me a warm feeling. Might I please ask (because I truly want to know) what kind of feeling you get when you write His name, and when you think of Jesus as the Christ? How about when you ask your God if Jesus is the Christ? (warm, cold, negative, positive, hateful, spiritual) What does He tell you? If your answer is somewhere back in the Gates, could you please post the link so I can re-read it? Thank-you.
ray
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2003, at 15:07:28
In reply to Re: We Are All Jesus » Lou Pilder, posted by rayww on February 20, 2003, at 14:36:10
rayww,
You wrote,[...I don't underdstand your point...].
There is a great difference between [jesus] and [jesus christ].
The word,{christ}, is an English word that has been translated from the Greek language word,[christos]. But [christos] has been translated from an ancient Hebrew word,{mashiach}. Mashiach, which the word {messiah} comes from, means [anointed]. So jesus christ, means Jesus the Anointed One. Now all of this I intended to explain in the 7 Gates. I intended to explain how one could also become {anointed} and actually experiance oneness with God regardless of being jewish or christian or Islamic, or Hindu or athiest or agnostic or Wiccan or Buddahst or polythiest or anything else.
For when I was on the Road, the Rider, who is the Word of God in my experiance, said to me, " There is a mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now I will reveal it to you. This mystery is; The Anointed Within You- the hope of glory."
Lou
Posted by Todd on February 20, 2003, at 23:08:25
In reply to Re: We Are All Jesus » rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2003, at 15:07:28
Well, I really don't see a reason to distinguish between Jesus and Jesus Christ. I think it is just a matter of semantics. I do, however, see what you mean in your distinction, so let's go with Jesus Christ.
Theosis is a new word for me, and I do find it intriguing. In the same breath, though, it just seems like a semantics thing for me. I was raised in the good ole fashioned Catholic tradition and rejected it in my early twenties. As I began to explore other religious and spiritual traditions, I realized that most of them, although using different words and symbolism, were basically describing the same experiences. I am now in my late 30's and firmly believe in the unity and interconnectedness of all of our life experiences. I do believe that on higher levels or dimensions, we all indeed are One.
I have been diagnosed bipolar, and have been living with this "condition" for the past 14 years. During my initial manic episode, for which I was hospitalized, I had some very profound spiritual experiences. Like you, much was revealed to me. At the time, I wrote most of my experiences and insights off as madness because everyone else did. Over the last decade or so, though, I have come to realize that I was indeed in on something that most people lack the perception to understand.
Among other things, the most powerful vision I had was being united with God. I saw the glory of God, yet I was simultaneously one with him. It was pure, absolutely timeless BEING. It was a state of unspeakable beauty, peacefulness, and bliss. I felt, tasted, saw, heard, smelled, and WAS God. It was as if I was a drop of water in a sea of infinite beauty - I was a drop, yet at the same time I was the sea. There was almost no distinction between the two except for the fact that I was a witness, a point of consciousness if you will. It was the most mind-blowing experience of my life, and I hold it dear to my heart.
When I came back to physical reality, I felt completely cleansed and purified. I felt like Jesus Christ - completely human, yet completely God. I knew that it sounded absolutely crazy, and thought of others like Manson and Koresh who thought they were the second coming of Jesus. Yet I KNEW I wasn't crazy, since I had just experienced it and considered myself to be quite a sane guy. I realized that we are all Christ at our core - we are all of God. There was a part of me that told myself to keep it under my hat, but there was a part of me that was bursting to tell everyone about it. The latter part of me won out, and I landed myself in the hospital.
In hindsight and with a bit of study in the metaphysical, I realized that in whichever way that I had managed to connect to God, I had stayed there too long. I had touched ENORMOUS energy, and my physical body could not contain it. I think it was way too much insight way too quickly, and the energy in my body was literally burning me up. That's why I believe the mania manifested itself because of a lack of understanding and an overload of energy in my system. No physical body can hold that much energy, and on some level, I believe I was trying to. I also was desperate to validate all of my experiences because I didn't trust them myself.
In any case, although the red flags have gone up a few times since then, I have never again experienced a full-blown mania. And since that mania, I have come to fully embrace the insights I was given and try to work them into my daily life, enriching my own life as well as the lives of others. There is no need to blurt anything out anymore because I don't need to validate anything. I know what I know, and I realize that that is a very miniscule amount indeed. I just keep following my path, and rejoice when I cross paths with others with similar experiences. I love to share!
Posted by rayww on February 21, 2003, at 8:58:06
In reply to Re: We Are All Jesus, posted by Todd on February 20, 2003, at 23:08:25
Todd, thank you for sharing. This is a remarkable story, and a very real side to the mania. It is good to hear others experiances that are similar to your own. I think it is important for us all to realize and admit that there is a slight difference, but it may only be as slight as an e to an a. I doubt I would ever have the courage to tell my story on a public forum. Although, maybe I have already, and just can't remember :)
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 16:32:50
In reply to Re: We Are All Jesus, posted by Todd on February 20, 2003, at 23:08:25
Todd,
You wrote,[...I felt completly {cleansed}...].
I would appreciate it if you could expound further upon this experiance that you had.
Lou
Posted by Todd on February 21, 2003, at 18:49:11
In reply to Re: We Are All Jesus » Todd, posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2003, at 16:32:50
Lou, there are no words for that type of experience. It is like trying to approximate the dazzling beauty of Autumn in New England with a pencil and a piece of paper. There is really no way to expound on it further. It's like the familiar saying "you just had to be there." Sorry.
Posted by rayww on February 23, 2003, at 0:17:39
In reply to Re: We Are All Jesus » rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on February 20, 2003, at 15:07:28
Jesus is my Christ Lou. I know He lives and directs the affairs of this earth. He is my Savior and Redeemer. I love Him with all my heart, and try so hard to keep His commandments. He blesses me with His love and showers me with his kindness. He meets me in my personal wilderness and understands my most intimate needs. I would die for Him and I would live for Him. Jesus is the literal living Son of the literal living God. He was not exactly killed on the cross. He gave up his life when he felt the suffering for the collective sins of mankind was complete.
http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/23/46#46
Because he was God and man, He had the ability to die and the power to resurrrect himself too, which broke the bands of death and opened the door to the resurrection for all of us. Without Jesus Christ there would be no resurrection or eternal life. "I am the resurrection and the life" He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.
http://scriptures.lds.org/john/11/25#25
I believe in Jesus Christ Lou. I believe that Jesus is the only Christ. And I seal my testimony in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 6:58:41
In reply to sacred to me » Lou Pilder, posted by rayww on February 23, 2003, at 0:17:39
rayww,
You wrote,[...I believe in Jesus Christ {Lou}. I believe that Jesus is the {only} Christ...]
Could you clarify why your post is directed toward me? If you could, then I could have a better understasnding of your post and be beter able to reply to it.
Could you also clarify why your statement that [...Jesus is the {only} Christ..] is also posted here? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of why you are posting your post to [me] and, perhaps, not to the whole community here.
Lou
Posted by rayww on February 23, 2003, at 9:12:01
In reply to Lou's reply to rayww's post » rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 6:58:41
> rayww,
> You wrote,[...I believe in Jesus Christ {Lou}. I believe that Jesus is the Christ...]
> Could you clarify why your post is directed toward me? If you could, then I could have a better understasnding of your post and be beter able to reply to it.Something you wrote to me in another response left me unsettled
("There is a great difference between [jesus] and [jesus christ]".)
and I had a desire and a need to clarify my belief. Since it is sacred, I symbolically tried to narrow it down to Lou, thinking it would lessen the chance for something as sacred as my deepest belief to be scoffed at or trampled. Perhaps it was more of a symbolic expression of my shyness for groups, and of my desire to protect the name of Jesus Christ. I am a defender of Christ and these boards are not safe.
> Could you also clarify why your statement that [...Jesus is the Christ..] is also posted here? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of why you are posting your post to [me] and, perhaps, not to the whole community here.
> LouI trust you Lou. You believe in God. I accept your Rider experiance as your personal safety net. But, maybe deeper than I can even recognize myself, I have a desire to connect your Rider to Christ in an experience. In my mind, whenever I read one of your rider posts, it connects. That's why I sometimes post the actual New Testament scripture that coincides with your experiance.
My mind is not your mind. My thoughts are not your thoughts. I have expressed my testimony to a board friend, not to be disputed or argued, but to be accepted as my belief, and dropped Lou.
There is nothing about it that requires analyzing. I have stated it clearly. If the whole community reads it, of course everything that is written on these boards is open to the whole community. You are speaking of a matter of board ettiquette, which I don't entirely get yet. Maybe.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 9:53:41
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to rayww's post, posted by rayww on February 23, 2003, at 9:12:01
rayww,
You wrote,[... in another discussion , something was unsettled and you wanted to narrow your response to {Lou}... to lessen the chance to be scoffed at...].
Could you confirm if my interpretation of what you wrote is correct?
I interpret your statement above to mean that you recognise that I am not a scoffer at your beliefs, so you directed your post to me so that if a poster that was a scoffer at your beliefes posted a response to your post, then you could answer to that poster that your post was to me and involved previous discussions that you wanted to clarify to Lou only? If you could, then the rest of your post will be clearer to me and I could reply further.
Lou
Posted by Todd on February 23, 2003, at 16:32:35
In reply to Lou's reply to rayww's reply to Lou's reply » rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 9:53:41
OK, OK, I understand people don't want to get their toes stepped on here, and I also understand nobody wants to step on another's toes either. Just as a matter of my own experience, I have realized that when I worry too much about being scoffed at or trampled upon for my beliefs, it is usually because deep down inside I am desperately searching for validation for my own beliefs instead of honestly wanting to share. On the one hand, your beliefs are your beliefs, and if you are truly confident in them, they will be bulletproof and you won't really care if people scoff. On the other hand, nobody's beliefs, IMHO, should ever be so bulletproof that they can't be open for growth and pruning.
When I say "you" in the above paragraph, I am referring to nobody in particular. That is just my opinion and my experience, which are each worth about a penny. I don't want to get too far off topic here - I was hoping we could start a good discussion and share our experiences. We all grow together. I feel that my ideas find no conflict with anyone of ANY religious or spiritual persuasion, rather, I feel my ideas and experiences serve to unify us all. Again - any thoughts?
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 18:37:19
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to rayww's reply to Lou's reply, posted by Todd on February 23, 2003, at 16:32:35
Todd,
You wrote,[...no one's beliefs shoud be...that they can't be open for growth and pruning...].
Sounds good and makes sense. For would not anyone's spiritual experiance be a continuing journey with new revelations possible around the bends?
Lou
Posted by rayww on February 24, 2003, at 0:34:28
In reply to Lou's reply to rayww's reply to Lou's reply » rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2003, at 9:53:41
> rayww,
> You wrote,[... in another discussion , something was unsettled and you wanted to narrow your response to {Lou}... to lessen the chance to be scoffed at...].
> Could you confirm if my interpretation of what you wrote is correct?
> I interpret your statement above to mean that you recognise that I am not a scoffer at your beliefs, so you directed your post to me so that if a poster that was a scoffer at your beliefes posted a response to your post, then you could answer to that poster that your post was to me and involved previous discussions that you wanted to clarify to Lou only? If you could, then the rest of your post will be clearer to me and I could reply further.
> Lou
Let's see: rayww's reply to Lou's reply to rayww's reply to lou's statement that caused rayww to feel unsettled about lou's statement about Jesus: Is that where this is going Lou? if so, why don't you just respond from your heart without trying to analyse it all? Or are we still trying to understand every jot and tittle of the law?
http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=%22jot%22&search.x=18&search.y=3
http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/34/13#13
Instead of trying to understand every jot and tittle, why not read the be-attitudes? http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=%22Blessed+are+the+meek%22&search.x=22&search.y=7If it is sharing and understanding you are after, then just read and write from your heart Lou. You have a lot to offer. You do feel the spirit. Don't you? Lou, if you have something to say from your heart, just say it. If it is something you have already written, paste the link. You are an intelligent person. You don't need to go the circles in depth of confusion and clarification in twists and turns of upside down thought repetition.
If your real reason for posting here is to convince us that Jesus is not the Christ just because one and one makes more than one God, it won't work. However, I do respect your belief, and I appreciate that you respect mine. Both beliefs can lead one to God. I have a deep love and respect for people. I have never met a person I couldn't learn something from, including you Lou.
Posted by rayww on February 24, 2003, at 0:43:15
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to rayww's reply to Lou's reply, posted by Todd on February 23, 2003, at 16:32:35
You make some excellent points, and I agree with all but one. I like your idea to unify. So let's identify the one most unifying thought. IMHO it would be the "H", though possibly tainted by the "M", definately not the "O". What do you think?
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2003, at 7:18:55
In reply to Re: confusion says: » Lou Pilder, posted by rayww on February 24, 2003, at 0:34:28
rayww,
You wrote,[...Lou, if you have something to say....just say it...].
I would very much like to do what you have recommended. However, I have been told by the admin. here that there are parts of my experiance that I am not permitted to post here. There is one part that ties in most of what you are asking here for me to write, so I can not reply accordingly to end any confusion, not because I choose to , but because I am restrained from doing so. I hope you understand .
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2003, at 7:30:47
In reply to Re: confusion says: » Lou Pilder, posted by rayww on February 24, 2003, at 0:34:28
rayww,
You wrote,[...if your real reason is to convince us that jesus is not the christ...].
Now you wrote,[...{if} that is the reason I am posting here...]. No, that is not the {real reason}that I am posting here.
You also wrote,[...you don't need to...]. Well, I really do [need to]. I have to understand what people are writing so that I can give a better response to their posts. When I request clarification, it is because it is [unclear] and sometimes {confusing} as to what others write and I want to [rule out] any implications that could cause any misunderstandings before I respond to a post here. I believe that it is more therapeutic to clear up any possible misunderstandings [before] I respond to a post.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2003, at 7:57:57
In reply to Re: confusion says: » Lou Pilder, posted by rayww on February 24, 2003, at 0:34:28
rayww,
You subject line reads,[...confusion says>>Lou Pilder...]
Could you confirm if my perception of your subject line inferrs that:
1B) There is no inference that that you are equating what I write as [confusing].
2B) The association of my name to [confusion says] is an accident.
3B) You left off something that you were going to write after [confusion says]and it is__________
4B) some other explanation.
I would like to think that [2B] could be an explanation of your subject line. So could you tell me if it is 2B or not 2B?
Lou
Posted by Todd on February 24, 2003, at 9:40:49
In reply to Lou's reply to rayww's post (3B) » rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2003, at 7:57:57
My goodness. Ray, I think the way you and I feel about Lou's responses is the same. Lou, why are you so evasive and analytical? I think the whole point of a good discussion is just speaking from the heart without thinking about it too much, for there is always plenty of time to think about it later. I can't remember where I saw it, but someone said once that "God acts in passion and rests in reason."
That said, let's leave most of the analysis outside of this forum. Write and post with PASSION. The twists and turns are making me dazed and confused and exhausted! It's like talking about a favorite flavor of Ben and Jerry's ice cream. Are we going to talk about all the ingredients that go into a particular flavor, then speak of the chemical makeup of each ingredient, then expound on the molecular breakdown of each component of each ingredient, until the frozen confection is reduced to a condensed package of humming electrons zooming around clusters of neutrons and protons? Did we forget that we are talking about humming chocolate hazelnut electrons zooming around clusters of cashew neutrons and rich raspberry protons? Aren't we getting further and further away from the practically orgasmic moment when we open our mouths to a heavenly spoonful and let the lump of frozen ecstasy melt on our expectant tongues? The soft shudders and luxurious feelings of joy that wash over our bodies as we dig our spoon in for another bite of nirvana?
Do you get what I am saying here? And Lou, I don't know what it was that Dr. Bob slapped your wrist for, but I would like to think that he would encourage discussions of ALL kinds, lest they were hurtful to any of the other members of this forum. I haven't posted here in a long time, but I used to. All Dr. Bob ever demanded was civility. Back then, religious topics were a bit more shied away from, and there was only one Psycho-Babble. Now there are at least half a dozen to suit our fancies. SHARE with us, Lou! I want ICE CREAM!
ps - This applies to you too, Ray. This O of Y without H is making me very T!
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 24, 2003, at 9:43:20
In reply to Re: confusion says: » Lou Pilder, posted by rayww on February 24, 2003, at 0:34:28
rayww,
You wrote,[...is that where this is going, Lou? If so, why don't you just respond from your heart without trying to analyse it all? Or are we still trying to understand evry [jot and tittle of the law?...]
I do not understand what you mean by,[...is this where this is going, Lou?].
Then you write about the [...jot and tittle of the law...].
Now , at this juncture, I wouold like for you to clarify what your refference to [the law] is related to here and more explanation for such in order for me to understand your post. If you could, then we could continue our discussion in a better light.
Best regards,
Lou
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Faith | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.