The problem is your making sure we have a “good understanding of what He meant,” will always collide with my “good” understanding of what he meant, (however, it is true that centuries of Christian doctrine back you up, so in the end the belief with the most power wins, at least that’s how the ‘world’ works - just look at the Bush doctrine).

And yes, as radical as it sounds, I do believe that having a perfectly changed world in its entirety is not futile and I do believe we can strive for such.

I would equally contend that your perception that Jesus is NOT saying we are God is misguided. Thus I believe we may never attain an understanding.

In addition, I would respectfully qualify your self-descriptive with “[I believe]I have become the person I am almost entirely through a relational unity to certain other individuals.”

However, I do agree 100% with your statement “there are limits to the usefulness of talking about questions that are beyond words.” We are essentially experiencing this now.

Yet, though we both know this, there is a joy in the talking and I would be honored to participate in an email discussion.

With respect,
Mike S

Thanks for replying back. I was hoping we could have a good conversation, and maybe we could have a private email conversation about your blog. I have a few questions.

I want to make several points and I’ll number them in response to yours.

1.
you say, “discussion disputing verse’s is beside the point ”
I’m not a Bible pusher, but I do have to make it a point to clarify the meaning behind a biblical passage. Especially one from the gospels.
Your perception that Jesus is saying that we are God is misguided. This verse was the basis of your comment and I think it is vitally important to make sure we have a good understanding of what he meant.

2.However, the world has not changed in anyway through centuries of such “relational unity” and to continue to use this belief as a starting point will continue to change what it always has - nothing.

I disagree. We must have different views of the world and what equals change.
One changed individual = one changed world. Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha, and Lao Tze all changed millions of individuals. These are all individuals who changed the world through some concept of relational unity.
I have become the person I am almost entirely through a relational unity to certain other individuals.
If you want a perfectly changed world in its entirety, then I think all efforts would be futile. This is not what we should be striving for. We need to be changing our world. The individuals and environment whom we can influence. This is world changing.

3.Sadly, it is this dogged adherence to “the word” that keeps us stuck. If “metaphysical” means going beyond the “words” then I disagree that it is “babble.”

I agree that metaphysical talk is not babble and that it is difficult to use and get beyond words. I didn’t even want to write metaphysical, but couldn’t think of the correct word I was looking for.
On the other hand, there are limits to the usefulness of talking about questions that are beyond words.
i.e. Talking about what is heaven and who gets into the afterlife is pointless. These are things that cannot be answered.
Talking about living in a way that is improving the world through a God that is understood from Christ can be answered and has meaning behind it.
I disagree that we are not God and one as God literally, but our conversation would get to a point where it is useless.

4.Contrary to your encouragement, I do intend to take the verses out of “context” as my belief is that the traditionally presumed “context” of what Jesus teaches is exactly why the teachings are misinterpreted.

This is my out of context statement that I gathered from your comment.

the world has not changed in anyway through centuries of such..defining any attempt to go beyond the “word” as “metaphysical babble.”

Contrary to your encouragement, I do intend to take the verses out of “context” as .. what Jesus teaches is exactly why the teachings are misinterpreted.

—

I think the text should be read just as any other writing: book, comment or email should be read. It needs to stay in context of the words before and after it.

If you purposefully, just grab random words then there is not point of citing that individual as authority. You are only creating new sentences and thoughts.

let me know if it will be allright to email you.

My point is that there is nothing wrong with “relational unity” and extending oneself to the world through loving acts. It would be great if the world could be changed in that way.

However, the world has not changed in anyway through centuries of such “relational unity” and to continue to use this belief as a starting point will continue to change what it always has - nothing.

Mans inhumanity to man is unabated and suffering continues seemingly on ad infinitum.

In addition, you further reveal your adherence to the written word, (words which haven’t helped the world much either), by defining any attempt to go beyond the “word” as “metaphysical babble.”

Sadly, it is this dogged adherence to “the word” that keeps us stuck. If “metaphysical” means going beyond the “words” then I disagree that it is “babble.”

Contrary to your encouragement, I do intend to take the verses out of “context” as my belief is that the traditionally presumed “context” of what Jesus teaches is exactly why the teachings are misinterpreted. Maybe going outside the conventional context of Biblical dogma will result in the radical change needed for the world to finally experience peace.

Nevertheless, I comment in the good natured spirit of disagreement. I, too, have visited your site often and found many nuggets of truth available.

keep up the good work(s),

Mike S

I am somewhat confused about your comment though and think that you have missed my point. It is an inductive type of logic where the premise is negated by the conclusion.

I did conclude that it is about all of us: God, others and me.

I also do not agree with and am very worried about how you are using Bible verses to prove your point.

The verses you have chosen to use are from different paragraphs and points in the chapter. He is not talking about how we: God and us are all of one essence. He isn’t even talking metaphysical babble.

The chapter is about a relational unity. He is asking us to become so closely unified and serving as He is with God the Father. If we are completely together in love and compassion with one another, then Jesus believes that it shows the true nature of God.

It is nothing about a philosophy on existence. It is deeper, more real and more practical.

I encourage you to keep verses in context, because vs. 21-23, while related, are not making the same point as vs 11.

Jesus asked that “they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us…I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one” (John 17.11 & 21-23).

It stands to reason that if you are “one” with the world, you are no longer an individual but you are the world and, as Jesus alludes to, you are God. But the “individual” mind resists this with all its might and it is this resistance that results in suffering.

Therefore, it is about me, simply because I am you and we are us. Only when I can get my mind to wrap around that basic concept, will my love of self embrace, uphold and change the world simply because the world is me.

This is the perfection that Jesus proclaims awaits us when we become One Mind.

So I have to respectively disagree. It is about me, and you, and the Kingdom of Heaven within each of us. When each one of us goes ‘there’ the world will unfold from that ‘place’ so “that they may be made perfect in one”

Just my humble opinion.

Mike S