Can the kind of unconditional Love that is God exist for the man and woman relationship?

[Dontaskme]

Who is being a squalling baby?

I thought that was clear -- the human self. We ALL have such a voice inside us.

Hmm, The voice inside us. . is the human self.

So basically what you are saying is the 'human self' is a 'voice' inside the us....hmm, that's two us...an us, and a voice in us...how does that work?

[Lacewing]

Well, you said you knew stuff about love that I was being "kept from" knowing.

Let's look at it truthfully, instead of through your distorted summary.

What I said was:

It would be extraordinarily arrogant and foolish for you to suppose that you know the full potential of love.

True?

Your investment in your own experience and interpretations, which you repeatedly cast as superior or more real, prevent you from seeing anything else.

True?

Therefore, the reality of any love greater/broader than what you see, is a threat to the beliefs you hold.

Is this an untrue statement?

So, you simply claim it doesn't exist in truth -- and if it was of god, you'd already know about it, right?

Is this an untrue statement?

I wonder if other people experience you as particularly loving.

Of course they do. I've actually been told many times that I'm one of the most loving people they've met. Perhaps you are confusing my swordplay with the absurd and false claims and people on this forum with the qualities of my personal life. I'm not here to express love to everybody; I'm here to explore truth and challenge falseness -- and in its own way, that can be seen as a fierce type of love.

People here continually point out to you that you don't come across as an honorable Christian, you know?

How about you answer my question that you skipped over:

Do you think that you know the extent and potential of love... or that which you consider God's love?

[Dontaskme]

Nowhere did I claim that. The self is very far from innocent, in fact.

You said that you are disgreeing with the viewpoints. Not the person, so that in my logic means the person is innocent of the viewpoints being addressed.

A person is just another word for self, is it not, if not, then what the heck is the definition of a self and who or what is defining this definition? It can't be the person, because you've already said, it's not the person who is being adressed, it's the viewpoints.
So how does that work? who or what is addressing the viewpoints?

How can a person be far from innocent, from lets theres knowledge of some ''offensive name calling''...which prompts a reactive response, when you have already said, the viewpoints are the issue being addressed, not the self/person...

You are not making any sense, unless you would care to make some up...huh?

The truth is Mr Can, you have absolutely no understanding of the nondual REALITY...you lie when you make the claim you do.

You reject it because you do not understand it, just be honest and admit you do not understand it, man up and stop lying.

To be honest, you are not alone, many people reject it, because it's such a mindfuck for the brain to process.

I think it is estimated that only 1 in 5 million people truly get it...so don't try to convince yourself that you understand it and then say you reject it at the same time, that's just silly.

[Immanuel Can]

Non-duality is not an ideology

Yeah, it is.

It's an idea about how things might work. It's not necessarily right, of course; but it's a theory, a belief about how ontology plays out.

[Immanuel Can]

What I said was:

It would be extraordinarily arrogant and foolish for you to suppose that you know the full potential of love.

True?

Of course...but trivally so. It's true of everybody, all the time.

Your investment in your own experience and interpretations, which you repeatedly cast as superior or more real, prevent you from seeing anything else.

True?

False. There's no reason why any "experience" cannot get better, nor any reason why "interpretations" cannot be changed for better ones. Nothing "prevents" that, and in fact, I would say that's how learning progresses.

I wonder if other people experience you as particularly loving.

Of course they do.

Interesting...

[Immanuel Can]

Nowhere did I claim that. The self is very far from innocent, in fact.

... in my logic means the person is innocent of the viewpoints being addressed.

That "logic" needs some work.

[Dontaskme]

Of course they do. I've actually been told many times that I'm one of the most loving people they've met.

We've had our battles, but I agree, you are a loving person. I've always known that about you, it's easy to spot a loving person, because the sense is intuitive, it always comes from a place of pure love. Love begets love. . it draws you in, while Hate is loves exact opposite, hate repels. Love always wins, because everything is drawn to love, not to hate, and that's the gravity and the power that is love. Love is just another word for absolute acceptance of what is. Non-acceptance cannot flourish, since there will come a time when non-acceptance will have to give in to full acceptance. Hate is a pretender, it will always return to it's source which is love. Because only love is real. That's the love I love, and I know you do too

[Dontaskme]

Non-duality is not an ideology

Yeah, it is.

It's an idea about how things might work. It's not necessarily right, of course; but it's a theory, a belief about how ontology plays out.

You are wrong, and when you fully understand what nonduality actually means, you will see how wrong you are to call it a theory, belief, an ontology or any thing at all for that matter..in the same context, an object can never inform itself it is an object. Objects are known - they are never seen. Simply because the knower is never seen. Show me a knower without making that knower a known object that cannot inform itself of it's existence? that's the dilemma you have to come to terms with...and fully accept it's truth.

Never mind, maybe the penny will drop for you one day, or the realisation might dawn on your death bed, which will be better late than never at all.

You cannot tell me I do not know what I am talking about IC...only I know that, not you. If you want to believe in invisible 2000 year old jewish zombies, then be my guest, that's your knowledge, not mine.

And don't you also lean toward an idea about how things might work, when you talk about how you know God and how God works, so we are both in the same predicament are we not.

So lets talk about who is right here...stupid game isn't it.

Jesus is your typical archetype, you made the image up yourself, because you have absolutely no other source of knowledge as to what you are, don't you see?

.

[Dontaskme]

Nowhere did I claim that. The self is very far from innocent, in fact.

... in my logic means the person is innocent of the viewpoints being addressed.

That "logic" needs some work.

The speaker and the spoken are one IC

Why even Jesus the man himself, aka you, spoke in Nondual terminology... here>

Christ is said to be the visible likeness of the Invisible God, in whom and through whom all things appear. Christ is essentially the Witness to all that God does, inseparable from God.

To See-colours Hear-sounds Feel-feelings Taste-flavours Smell-odours and Know-ideas is to be Aware. What else but Awareness can witness?

Plainly, the Witness/Awareness (Christ) is One with Consciousness (God).

Are you rejecting this quote IC?

That quote is a Nondual pointing IC...do you not know what it means when we use conceptual terminology as pointers to what the SELF/PERSON/BEING actually is?.... words are only ever pointing to that which is ONE aka everything, aka nothing, aka YOU

My God you are hard work.

The truth you do not accept, is that God is everything including evil, and until you accept that, your version of God will be forever false.

God is an earthquake, God is a dinosaur. There is only God.

[Dontaskme]

Immanuel Can wrote:

I was only speaking of the view you had expressed, not of your person.

Basically what you are saying here is like saying ..The action of beating a human head repeatedly with a brick causing that head to die....doesn't matter, because the consequences of that action is not of the person, it's only the action that will suffer the consequences, it's only the action that will be punished, not the person, because the action was not of the person.

That's basically what you are saying. How absurd.

Well that would be a pretty neat trick banging the action in jail, while the person gets off scot-free. Since according to your logic, the action is not of the person.

This is what Religion has done to you IC...it has literally fried your brain senseless.

[Lacewing]

Your investment in your own experience and interpretations, which you repeatedly cast as superior or more real, prevent you from seeing anything else. True?

False.

And yet... you ignored the remainder of my post/questions that were in response to you.

I wonder if other people experience you as particularly loving.

Of course they do.

Interesting...

It's probably just another thing you cannot fathom because of the self-serving investments that prevent you from seeing anything else.

[Immanuel Can]

Non-duality is not an ideology

Yeah, it is.

It's an idea about how things might work. It's not necessarily right, of course; but it's a theory, a belief about how ontology plays out.

You are wrong...So lets talk about who is right here...

We don't have to talk about it, if you don't want to. I'll still be right.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can wrote:

I was only speaking of the view you had expressed, not of your person.

Basically what you are saying here is like saying ..That's basically what you are saying.

Nope, you've got it all wrong, there.

To argue with a viewpoint is philosophy. To insult a person is slander. They are entirely unrelated. And if you don't know that, you sure should.

[Immanuel Can]

Your investment in your own experience and interpretations, which you repeatedly cast as superior or more real, prevent you from seeing anything else. True?

False.

And yet... you ignored the remainder of my post/questions that were in response to you.

Because they depended on the false step you'd already made.

[Lacewing]

We've had our battles, but I agree, you are a loving person. I've always known that about you

Thank you, DAM. I see it in your communications too. I think loving awareness is broader than any single belief system or personal perspective. And yes, it's another way of expressing absolute acceptance of what is (well put, by you). To love the world as it is... to love ourselves as we are... is such a beautiful and great love, it seems to me. And now and then I feel it so profoundly, as many people do. The absence of demands, judgments, ego, and agendas/stories -- just being and loving all in its entirety. Seeing the perfection behind this Earthly stage performance. Ultimately, no one is excluded, and no one is superior. I will add that I think all stories are part of this stage... nothing more... and it's perfectly fine to dance with that, as we do.