Religious

[Light]

I forgot to mention that when you experience "divine love", there is no "return love" necessary. You are one with your source, God (Love). There is not this artificial separation of self and God as preached by religion.

We are born with this love and you can see it in very young children. But as we grow older our attention is drawn by the vicissitudes of life and we lose our focus. That is why Jesus said Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Obviously that means rediscovering that inner love child within. But wait, that will be impossible since Boxcar says the Kingdom is not within. That we do not have "love within". That we are all 'sinners".

The Good news is that it's only been since the late 70's that the phrase "the Kingdom is within" was changed to "among us" or "in our midst". This was done in the NIV (New international version) Bible to appeal to Evangelicals in the late 70's. Later it was done in the NRSE (New revised standard edition) as well. B4 that the KJV and the NKJV (New King James Version) were the only acceptable American versions of the Bible from 1611 till the NIV and they said the "Kingdom is within". So all this "debate" about what did Jesus really mean when he talked to the Pharisees was never in dispute until recently when Evangelicals decided Jesus runs an exclusive membership club for Evangelicals and he meant something else. Yet for 2000 years when the superficial Evangelicals kept their snobbishness out of the Bible there was no controversy or doubt about what he said.

This is what I meant when I said the Bible has been manipulated by man over the centuries. Did you know that the first man who attempted to translate the Bible into English in 1536 (William Tyndale) was strangled and burned at the stake for it by the Church itself. How hypocritical can you get. The reason was because the church did not want common folks to be able to form their own opinions about what was in the Bible. If they could read it in their own language that is what they feared would happen. They did not want independent thinking. They wanted everyone to believe what they were told about God by the church. Today,the Boxcars and Evangelicals of the world are like the corrupt church who decide who is being "holy", who is being "Godly", who is going to Heaven, and what Jesus meant here and there. As if they know. History shows, these types are the most ignorant of all.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Light

I forgot to mention that when you experience "divine love", there is no "return love" necessary. You are one with your source, God (Love). There is not this artificial separation of self and God as preached by religion.

We are born with this love and you can see it in very young children. But as we grow older our attention is drawn by the vicissitudes of life and we lose our focus. That is why Jesus said Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Obviously that means rediscovering that inner love child within. But wait, that will be impossible since Boxcar says the Kingdom is not within. That we do not have "love within". That we are all 'sinners".

The Good news is that it's only been since the late 70's that the phrase "the Kingdom is within" was changed to "among us" or "in our midst". This was done in the NIV (New international version) Bible to appeal to Evangelicals in the late 70's. Later it was done in the NRSE (New revised standard edition) as well. B4 that the KJV and the NKJV (New King James Version) were the only acceptable American versions of the Bible from 1611 till the NIV and they said the "Kingdom is within". So all this "debate" about what did Jesus really mean when he talked to the Pharisees was never in dispute until recently when Evangelicals decided Jesus runs an exclusive membership club for Evangelicals and he meant something else. Yet for 2000 years when the superficial Evangelicals kept their snobbishness out of the Bible there was no controversy or doubt about what he said.

This is what I meant when I said the Bible has been manipulated by man over the centuries. Did you know that the first man who attempted to translate the Bible into English in 1536 (William Tyndale) was strangled and burned at the stake for it by the Church itself. How hypocritical can you get. The reason was because the church did not want common folks to be able to form their own opinions about what was in the Bible. If they could read it in their own language that is what they feared would happen. They did not want independent thinking. They wanted everyone to believe what they were told about God by the church. Today,the Boxcars and Evangelicals of the world are like the corrupt church who decide who is being "holy", who is being "Godly", who is going to Heaven, and what Jesus meant here and there. As if they know. History shows, these types are the most ignorant of all.

An EXCELLENT assessment!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

I forgot to mention that when you experience "divine love", there is no "return love" necessary. You are one with your source, God (Love). There is not this artificial separation of self and God as preached by religion.

Again..you're waxing very anthropomorphic by taking those two passages in 1 John 4 literally. Only personal, moral, rational creatures can love. How can a self-professed pantheist say that rocks, grass, trees, the sky, lizards, mud puddles etc, etc. are love?

And, yes, anyone that truly has the love of God within will manifest that love back to God and express it toward others. You just don't keep that love bottled up inside of you. It must manifest itself in concrete ways toward others. The one you "believe in" said:

Mark 12:28-31
28 And one of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?" 29 Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; 30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' 31 "The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."
NASB

And God manifested and historically demonstrated his love toward sinners by sending Jesus into the world to atone for the sins of all who would believe on him. "For God so loved the world that HE GAVE his only begotten son...." Love GIVES. Love does not hoard, hide or bottle up. The love you think you have in you is not the love of God, for it it were the love of God, you would be constrained to share that love within you with others and to return that love to God. In fact, true love would express itself as 1 Corinthians 13 defines true love.

And furthermore, love demands an object!!!! And it demands an object beyond oneself. We even see this truth strongly implied in the Tri-Unity of God. Who was God loving before he created the universe? The Persons in the Godhead were loving each other!

We are born with this love and you can see it in very young children. But as we grow older our attention is drawn by the vicissitudes of life and we lose our focus. That is why Jesus said Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Obviously that means rediscovering that inner love child within. But wait, that will be impossible since Boxcar says the Kingdom is not within. That we do not have "love within". That we are all 'sinners".

Yeah...don't forget the "converted part. In other words, unless you REPENT of your sins -- this is how one is converted -- by turning away from sin and turning to God in trust -- the same kind of trust children have for their parents.

The Good news is that it's only been since the late 70's that the phrase "the Kingdom is within" was changed to "among us" or "in our midst". This was done in the NIV (New international version) Bible to appeal to Evangelicals in the late 70's. Later it was done in the NRSE (New revised standard edition) as well. B4 that the KJV and the NKJV (New King James Version) were the only acceptable American versions of the Bible from 1611 till the NIV and they said the "Kingdom is within". So all this "debate" about what did Jesus really mean when he talked to the Pharisees was never in dispute until recently when Evangelicals decided Jesus runs an exclusive membership club for Evangelicals and he meant something else. Yet for 2000 years when the superficial Evangelicals kept their snobbishness out of the Bible there was no controversy or doubt about what he said.

This is what I meant when I said the Bible has been manipulated by man over the centuries. Did you know that the first man who attempted to translate the Bible into English in 1536 (William Tyndale) was strangled and burned at the stake for it by the Church itself. How hypocritical can you get. The reason was because the church did not want common folks to be able to form their own opinions about what was in the Bible. If they could read it in their own language that is what they feared would happen. They did not want independent thinking. They wanted everyone to believe what they were told about God by the church. Today,the Boxcars and Evangelicals of the world are like the corrupt church who decide who is being "holy", who is being "Godly", who is going to Heaven, and what Jesus meant here and there. As if they know. History shows, these types are the most ignorant of all.

The Good News is the gospel, which you consider to be very bad news.

As scholars became more proficient in understanding the ancient languages, changes have been made to various passages. In the case of the Lukian passage, the change is spot on for the dozen or so reasons provided between myself and more recently by Overlay. It fits the immediate context of the passage itself and the larger context of the entire bible. Your translation does neither! For example, you have yet to explain to us Jesus' use of the present tense verb "is" when the Holy Spirit had not yet been given.

And by the way, the NIV is not the only translation that renders that passage that way. Most translations have now inserted a footnote indicating the alternate translation.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

An EXCELLENT assessment!

Here's another assessment for you: The reason you and all other unbelievers hate divine revelation is because it restrains sinners' carnal imagination. Everyone dearly loves (since we're on the topic of love) to be a law unto themselves. This is why people reject revelation. No one want's to submit to it. After all -- sinners love the darkness. Sinners think they're great free thinkers and free people, when in fact they are enslaved to the sins they love so much.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Then that is NOT the divine love I am talking about. That is love that is here today and gone with divorce tomorrow. As I said b4, the love that one awakens to is not connected to a person, place, or thing. In that case it can only be divine and an interaction between the divine and the blessed is automatic.

You just contradicted yourself. You say you believe the texts that say that "God is love" but now turn right around and say that love isn't connected to a person? So, God is what exactly: Chopped liver?

[Hank]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You just contradicted yourself. You say you believe the texts that say that "God is love" but now turn right around and say that love isn't connected to a person? So, God is what exactly: Chopped liver?

Your ability to "miss" the point being made by others is truly amazing.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Hank

Your ability to "miss" the point being made by others is truly amazing.

Well, maybe you wanna address Light's contradiction. He clearly as said God is love, which means this is an attribute of the Person of God. Then he turns right around and tells us that love isn't connected to any person. So...my question stands: WHAT is God: chopped liver?

But Light is full of contradictions. He claims that he has the kingdom of God within him just as he thinks the Pharisees did. If this is so, this means that Light is in the kingdom. But herein is the very sticky problem for Mr. Light: Whose Kingdom? If it's God's kingdom (per Luke 17), then this means God is King of this universe (see for example Psalm 47). But yet...Light doesn't submit to the rule of this King. He believes virtually nothing this King has revealed through his prophets and apostles. So...how can anyone claim to be in God's kingdom and yet not submit to the rule of Christ the King? Jesus himself warned about this kind of contradictory of thinking:

Luke 6:46-49
46 "And why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? 47 "Everyone who comes to Me, and hears My words, and acts upon them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation upon the rock; and when a flood rose, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. 49 "But the one who has heard, and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house upon the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great."
NASB

And so it will be with all self-deceived people who think as Light does: Their ruin will be great!

To really be in God's kingdom is to obey the King by ACTING UPON HIS WORDS. So, why does Light claim to in God's kingdom and not follow Christ's warning in the above passage?

Contradiction number three for Light: He has repeatedly railed against scripture because evil men with evil agendas edited the scriptures many centuries ago, meaning nothing can be believed. All scripture is highly suspect. Yet, repeatedly, Light has appealed to certain select segments of these "edited" scriptures to make his arguments. Consistency is not Light's strong suit.

Contradiction number four: Light has said that I have contradicted myself by pointing out the verb tense of "is" in Luke 17 wherein Christ was speaking, when I did no such thing. All remarks I made about the future applied to the passage in Matthew when John the Baptist was speaking. Yet, Light boasts that he has all this love in him, even though he lied about me lying! He deliberately wronged me. But scripture teaches that true biblical love does no wrong to another (Rom 13:10).

Methinks, Hank, you have missed more than one point around here...

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Again..you're waxing very anthropomorphic by taking those two passages in 1 John 4 literally. Only personal, moral, rational creatures can love. How can a self-professed pantheist say that rocks, grass, trees, the sky, lizards, mud puddles etc, etc. are love?

I never said that rocks trees etc are love.I said God is love as the Bible says.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And furthermore, love demands an object!!!!

Worldly love demands an object. I have repeatedly told you I am referring to divine love which does NOT demand an object, cause, or reason.

Originally Posted by boxcar

As scholars became more proficient in understanding the ancient languages, changes have been made to various passages.

Biblical changes were mainly made for self interests as the Evangelicals did in the late 70's. How can Evangelicals allow "the Kingdom is within" to stand. That empowers independence and personal experience rather than obedience to a man made authority.

You're saying it took 2000 years to catch the most profound statement by Jesus as a translation error? I don't think so.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Well, maybe you wanna address Light's contradiction. He clearly as said God is love, which means this is an attribute of the Person of God.

You create the contradiction by inserting that God is a Person. I never said God is a person. He can be but mostly is not in that form.

Originally Posted by boxcar

So...how can anyone claim to be in God's kingdom and yet not submit to the rule of Christ the King?

Because God's kingdom is love. If you are in that world of divine love then you are in his Kingdom. If you are reading a Bible about it then you are NOT in his Kingdom. You are only reading about it.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

I never said that rocks trees etc are love.I said God is love as the Bible says.

But you have also said that God is in the rocks and trees and plants. God is in everything -- including the poop in my cats' litter boxes.

Also, on what grounds do you believe those passages in 1John 4? Have you not told us that those ancient scriptures cannot be trusted because of the extensive editing that has taken place over the centuries?

Worldly love demands an object. I have repeatedly told you I am referring to divine love which does NOT demand an object, cause, or reason.

Then if that is the case, God does not love you or anyone else in this world, since he would have no objects for his love! Therefore, all your statements about "divine love" are absolutely meaningless!

And what part of Jesus' command "Love your neighbor as yourself", don't you understand? Or is that one of the passages that you know for a fact was edited?






Biblical changes were mainly made for self interests as the Evangelicals did in the late 70's. How can Evangelicals allow "the Kingdom is within" to stand. That empowers independence and personal experience rather than obedience to a man made authority.

You're saying it took 2000 years to catch the most profound statement by Jesus as a translation error? I don't think so.[/QUOTE]

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

You create the contradiction by inserting that God is a Person. I never said God is a person. He can be but mostly is not in that form.

What contradiction did I create? Only rational, moral, personal beings are capable of love. I have never felt the love of a tree or rock or the flowers or the raindrops, etc. , etc.

Because God's kingdom is love. If you are in that world of divine love then you are in his Kingdom. If you are reading a Bible about it then you are NOT in his Kingdom. You are only reading about it.

And back at you: If you are only reading a bible about how "God is love", or how we all must "convert and become as little children", or how the "kingdom of God is within" us all, then what can you possibly know!?

There is no text in scripture that teaches that. God's kingdom is this:

Rom 14:17-19
17for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who in this way SERVES Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then let us pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.
NASB

But you serve no one but yourself! Since Christ is the King of kings and Lord and lords, this is the one all true believers serve. A kingdom requires a King, Mr. Light. And that is exactly how the ancients of Christ's day would have understood all Jesus' kingdom teachings, especially since Israel was a theocracy. Well...here's a newsflash for you: That theocratic rule of the King is still alive and well today, except it is no longer limited to just a nation with physical boundaries. It's been expanded to an invisible nation (the church) that consists of all born again believers who have been given a new heart, that has been promised under the New Covenant, in order to love God and neighbor.

You are deceiving yourself if you think you have the "love of God" within you and at the same time have not one iota of love for Him in return or a grateful heart -- even for the life breath within you. By your own admission you have no love for God or His Son, so listen to what Jesus said:

John 14:24a
24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words;
NASB

You certainly have proven you have no love for Christ; for you have no regard for the Word of God. Your own admission to this fact condemns you! But God shows lovingkindness to only those who love Him and keep his commandments --the commands of the King (Ex 20:6; Deut 5:10; Rom 8:28). And, yet, despite all this abundance of biblical testimony, you claim to be a believer in Christ while not having a modicum of love for Him. I think you should look to your own hypocrisy and contradictions before pointing to any you wrongfully perceive in me.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But you have also said that God is in the rocks and trees and plants. God is in everything -- including the poop in my cats' litter boxes.

It depends with what frame of mind you look at things. In God consciousness, the consciousness in different things is the same consciousness in us expressed in a different form. It is the form it is taking at the moment that is perceptually different, but the consciousness in that object is the same as in us. That form in the object will change over space and time. But since God consciousness is beyond space and time, you can see God within the object.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Also, on what grounds do you believe those passages in 1John 4? Have you not told us that those ancient scriptures cannot be trusted because of the extensive editing that has taken place over the centuries?

As I told you once I cherry pick as you cherry pick.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Then if that is the case, God does not love you or anyone else in this world, since he would have no objects for his love! Therefore, all your statements about "divine love" are absolutely meaningless!

Divine love makes no DEMAND of an object. Since it is omnipresent (which means within you as well) it is your CHOICE to harmonize with it or ignore it. Jesus was just pointing the way as well as the Buddha and others.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And what part of Jesus' command "Love your neighbor as yourself", don't you understand? Or is that one of the passages that you know for a fact was edited?

I don't have a problem with that since the same consciousness exists in all of us making us all equal.

Originally Posted by boxcar

You are deceiving yourself if you think you have the "love of God" within you and at the same time have not one iota of love for Him in return or a grateful heart -- even for the life breath within you. By your own admission you have no love for God or His Son, so listen to what Jesus said:

John 14:24a
24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words;
NASB

I understand by what logic you conclude I do not have love for God. It is because I do not believe in the written word. But remember, the reason I don't believe in the written word is because it is just that, a belief that it is written by God not man. Nobody disputes that it is physically written by man. But its accuracy leaves a lot to be desired. I have higher standards that that when I dedicate my entire spiritual life.

How is it that men throughout history who follow the "good book" have waged wars or advocated for wars when they are supposed to be men of peace? How is it that there are so many pedophiles internationally and locally when they are supposed to be men of peace. A few bad apples? Consider many of these bad apples held very high positions including Popes. These are just a couple of examples, there are many, many, more.

So can you understand why the written word of the "good book " is not reliable to me. Men much more experienced at this go out and do evil deeds and you want me to believe in the same things they believe in that apparently did not prevent them from committing acts of atrocity. Some actually used the Bible to justify their heinous crimes.

Common sense will tell you God is not superficial enough to be put into words. God must be put into one's heart. It is not your place to tell me I have no love for God. If you had true love for God, you would never feel qualified to pass judgement on my relationship to God. You think the Bible gives you that right? That is why Bible thumpers feel they can start wars and abuse children and tell other people they are going to hell. They are walking contradictions.

Look at the four Gospels. None written by their authors they claim to represent and each with a different version of things like the birth of Christ. They are all different. Mathew says Christ was born in Bethlehem. Luke says Nazareth. Mathew says in a house, Luke says in a stable. Mathew says there was a star but no Angels. Luke says no star but Angels. Is this the word of God? So unsure of even the birth of Christ with different stories? The Bible is riddled with inconsistencies like this. Is that the flimsy type of records you want me to base my spiritual life on? Come on.

That's why I cherry pick. I take what I can from the Bible and move on. Same for other religions. But they are all external to me. My tabernacle is within, not in a church or a book. God has 100% proved to me he exists. I do not need a middle man to tell me how my relationship to God should be. Would you want someone telling you how your relationship with your wife should be and make a big book about it and tell you it says here and there you must do this or go to Hell? You'd go crazy. You know that if the main thing is love, the rest will follow. I communicate directly with God within and no one has authority over that.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

It depends with what frame of mind you look at things. In God consciousness, the consciousness in different things is the same consciousness in us expressed in a different form. It is the form it is taking at the moment that is perceptually different, but the consciousness in that object is the same as in us. That form in the object will change over space and time. But since God consciousness is beyond space and time, you can see God within the object.

Pure nonsense. Rocks have no conscious. Again...only rational, moral, personal beings can love. And if Love demands no object then why would you think for a nanosecond that God loves you or anyone else in this world?

As I told you once I cherry pick as you cherry pick.

I don't cherry-pick because I don't have to. I believe the full counsel of God, whereas you do not. You believe only what you want -- what tickles your ears.

Furthermore, you're still hypocritical for cherry-picking since you have such low regard for scripture. Why even quote anything from that body of literature that has been, according to you, edited heavily by evil men with evil agendas? Maybe they told everyone that "God is love" to lull everyone into thinking that such a God would never condemn for all eternity any man. Maybe this doctrine came right out of the pit of hell. How do you know?

Divine love makes no DEMAND of an object. Since it is omnipresent (which means within you as well) it is your CHOICE to harmonize with it or ignore it. Jesus was just pointing the way as well as the Buddha and others.

Of course, true love would make demands because according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 13, love protects. Would you not a loving parent, for example, make demands on their children in order to protect them from harm? You see, you think that all the commands in the bible were put their by evil human beings in order to bring us harm -- when in fact, the commands in the bible are put their for our own benefit and welfare. They are put there out of God's love -- not out of the evil intentions of men's hearts.

I don't have a problem with that since the same consciousness exists in all of us making us all equal.

Well, that's nice but do you actually obey the King's command?

I understand by what logic you conclude I do not have love for God. It is because I do not believe in the written word. But remember, the reason I don't believe in the written word is because it is just that, a belief that it is written by God not man. Nobody disputes that it is physically written by man. But its accuracy leaves a lot to be desired. I have higher standards that that when I dedicate my entire spiritual life.

Scripture leaves nothing to be desired. Read Psalm 19.

How is it that men throughout history who follow the "good book" have waged wars or advocated for wars when they are supposed to be men of peace? How is it that there are so many pedophiles internationally and locally when they are supposed to be men of peace. A few bad apples? Consider many of these bad apples held very high positions including Popes. These are just a couple of examples, there are many, many, more.

Because like you they were hypocrites.

[quote]So can you understand why the written word of the "good book " is not reliable to me. Men much more experienced at this go out and do evil deeds and you want me to believe in the same things they believe in that apparently did not prevent them from committing acts of atrocity. Some actually used the Bible to justify their heinous crimes.

Common sense will tell you God is not superficial enough to be put into words. God must be put into one's heart. It is not your place to tell me I have no love for God. If you had true love for God, you would never feel qualified to pass judgement on my relationship to God. You think the Bible gives you that right? That is why Bible thumpers feel they can start wars and abuse children and tell other people they are going to hell. They are walking contradictions.

But only God himself can put himself into a person's heart. No human being can do that.

But what about the millions of Christians that have been true believers throughout history and have lived righteous lives, glorifying God by doing good deeds in the world? Judge the book on its own merits not on those who have claimed they were believers. According to your outlook all believers are evil human beings. Talk about being self-righteous!

Look at the four Gospels. None written by their authors they claim to represent and each with a different version of things like the birth of Christ. They are all different. Mathew says Christ was born in Bethlehem. Luke says Nazareth. Mathew says in a house, Luke says in a stable. Mathew says there was a star but no Angels. Luke says no star but Angels. Is this the word of God? So unsure of even the birth of Christ with different stories? The Bible is riddled with inconsistencies like this. Is that the flimsy type of records you want me to base my spiritual life on? Come on.

But if they were all the same then you would cry foul by claiming collusion! And obvious heavy editing!!! Differences don't mean they're contradictory. In order for something to be a contradiction it must violate the law of logic known as the Law of Non-Contradiction.

That's why I cherry pick. I take what I can from the Bible and move on. Same for other religions. But they are all external to me. My tabernacle is within, not in a church or a book. God has 100% proved to me he exists. I do not need a middle man to tell me how my relationship to God should be. Would you want someone telling you how your relationship with your wife should be and make a big book about it and tell you it says here and there you must do this or go to Hell? You'd go crazy. You know that if the main thing is love, the rest will follow. I communicate directly with God within and no one has authority over that.

You take what tickles your fancy. Period.

Luke 19:27
27 "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."
NASB

So, yes, Christ the King has supreme authority over all men, including how you communicate with God. Do you think God is made in man's sinful image that you can approach the Almighty on your personal terms -- anyway you see fit?

And by the way, the bible speaks a great deal to marital relationships. How much better the world would be if every man and woman followed scripture's prescriptions for marriage!

So, again...you are not in God's kingdom if Christ the King is not ruling and reigning in your heart -- if you're not submitting to the King's revealed will. You are deceiving yourself by believing otherwise.

[boxcar]

Good Morning, Mr. Light. I have a question for you about love: In Jesus' parable about the Good Samaritan, did he teach us about worldly love or godly love? Let's look at that parable closely:

Luke 10:25-37
25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 26 And He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?" 27 And he answered and said, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself." 28 And He said to him, "You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live." 29 But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" 30 Jesus replied and said, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went off leaving him half dead. 31 "And by chance a certain priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 "And likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 "But a certain Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, 34 and came to him, and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 "And on the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return, I will repay you.' 36 "Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?" 37 And he said, "The one who showed mercy toward him." And Jesus said to him, "Go and do the same."
NASB

So, tell me, Light: You have told us repeatedly that divine love requires no object; therefore do you interpret Jesus' parable as teaching us about how to love in an inferior, worldly way? But if he is, then how, specifically, is the love the Samaritan manifested toward the crime victim inferior to divine love? How could the Samaritan's love that sought the welfare and well being of another human being be inferior to a divine love that makes no such demands to seek out the welfare of others? It seems to me that a love that is practiced is infinitely more valuable than one that is kept bottled up inside oneself for self-serving or self-seeking purposes. A love that seeks its own [reward] is worthless and, indeed, ungodly (1Cor 13:4). This is why Jesus also said to the self-righteous law expert "Do this and live"! He didn't tell the guy to go home and meditate in his prayer closet and get in touch with the divine so that he can experience some ecstatic feeling! He told him to go out and do something that has practical value to others -- to manifest love in a practical way -- in a way that would benefit others.

Your idea of what divine love is all about is far off the mark and it totally worthless both in this life and in the life to come. If anyone does not love as Jesus taught in the parable, he will not inherit eternal life. That is the very crystal clear teaching of this parable.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Pure nonsense. Rocks have no conscious.

God is omnipresent which means it is in things too. There is a Sufi saying: “God sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal, and awakens in man.

Originally Posted by boxcar

I don't cherry-pick because I don't have to.

Liar. You don't believe what was always "The Kingdom is within you" which was in the Bible for 2000 years and only changed in the last 35 years to suit superficial phony religious people like you who have no ability to go beyond their own egos.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Of course, true love would make demands because according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 13, love protects. Would you not a loving parent, for example, make demands on their children in order to protect them from harm?

Again you miss the point. I am referring to divine love not worldly love. Parent children relationships are worldly.

Originally Posted by boxcar

But only God himself can put himself into a person's heart. No human being can do that.

God is always there. It is we who have to open our eyes.

Originally Posted by boxcar

According to your outlook all believers are evil human beings.

I never said that. I said there are many evil doers using the Bible to justify heinous acts. (BTW, do you have a reading comprehension issue?)

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, again...you are not in God's kingdom if Christ the King is not ruling and reigning in your heart -- if you're not submitting to the King's revealed will. You are deceiving yourself by believing otherwise.

You know nothing.