Time Maps: Part III

Finishing up our “Time Maps” installments, we continue with how the words of Jesus interpret the time maps Preston Harold has drawn for us.

Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, [Jesus] answered them and said the kingdom of God comes not with observation, nor will people say “Here it is!” or “There it is!” because the kingdom of God is in your midst. –Luke 17:20-21

Consciousness in man is attached to a material body and thus consciousness can take him only into a concept of absolute future. But man’s kingdom, the unconscious domain, is located “absolutely elsewhere” in relation to consciousness’ space-time frame; thus he does not have to “go” anywhere to enter this kingdom here-now within him, and thus he is with God and all things are possible to him: he is constantly passing through the “eye of a needle,” through the now, which is absolute unto himself only, for there “is no absolute Now, but only the various relative Nows differing according to the reckoning of different observers…”

Figure3

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father has declared Him.

–John 1:18

Eddington calls “Absolute Elsewhere” the neutral zone. God being the only “Absolute Esewhere” man can conceive of makes of Him a neutral event man cannot observe because he is taking place through and within God being – just as a child is taking place through a woman “with child” and the embryo cannot observe her as an event or form, and she cannot intervene in the natural process that causes him to be brought forth through her body and being. In this process, man becomes an event in himself, a biological event, his flesh antientropic although the random element is increased with every move he makes, pointing time’s arrow for consciousness as the unconscious calculates the hour.

 Figure4

Here we encounter a concept that can revolutionize the way we see the world: that humankind, each person, is an event, a verb. Not a noun, a dead product of thought, a mere “thing,” but a process, an activity, a living movement. And if humans are created in the image of God, then God must be a verb as well.

In our next post we will look a bit closer at what the word “random” might really mean. Until then, peace.

Two Sides of the Coin of Authority

Every coin has two sides, yet it remains one. What are the two sides of the “coin of authority?”

Jesus saw that a man who plays the role of absolute authority, or God, a priori, plays the same role as the man who plays Satan, for both roles veil a grasp for power. When accused by the Pharisees of casting out devils by the prince of devils, He does not deny this, but answers, “And if I by Be-el-ze-bub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?” Then, having spoken of the house divided if Satan casts out Satan, He adds, “But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.” Jesus says if. He will not admit to playing either the role of the devil or of God, saying on another occasion, “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.”

Jesus-vs-Satan

We as humans cannot condone anyone who makes a claim to Godhood; to absolute authority. Preston Harold continues…

Jesus recognized that both the Satanic and Messianic concepts conceal the will to express absolute power, and that the truth bearer who loses himself in his own revelation, believing himself to be or allowing himself to become deity, poses such threat as the sanity or logic associated with Satan could never pose. He showed in his drama that the man who allows himself to be called the Son of God, God in the flesh, or Messiah, will not be tolerated, that Judaism would not in truth tolerate any man’s fulfillment of prophecies regarding the Christ as these are set forth in the Scriptures. Judaism could not in Jesus’ day, nor can it now, tolerate its own Messianic concept, if actualized, any more than Christianity can tolerate the Pauline elaboration of it.

Yet Jesus revealed that we are all endowed with the very being of God, and that that being never allows us to truly be lost from sight:

Jesus refused to play either the role of God or of the devil. He was divinely human, and so must have been that first “gigantic one” who could not extricate himself from the role of God, intolerable, and thus was murdered only to return again and again, a promise and reminder in man’s mind, as parent truth in Homo sapiens led others to speak the same words, “Ani hu.”

iam

Until next time, peace…

Sex, Love, Marriage, and Divorce…

On the issues of sex, love, marriage and divorce, Harold pits St. Paul against Jesus in a match to the death.  No, not really.  But he does show how their views are at odds with one another.  Let’s begin with his statements about St. Paul:

St. Paul wrestled mightily with the Freudian god, sexual libido, as is Imageevidenced by these words: the “immoral man sins against his body….You are not your own, you were bought for a price; then glorify God with your body….It is indeed ‘an excellent thing for a man to have no intercourse with a woman’; but there is so much immorality, that every man had better have a wife of his own and every woman a husband of her own….”

Now Harold goes on to contrast Jesus’ understanding of the situation…

When one gathers Jesus’ words on the subject of sex, he sees that Jesus expressed a very different attitude toward sexuality from that expressed by St. Paul.  In answer to the Pharisee’s question of divorce, He refers to Scripture that attests to the need, right, and desirability of male and female to engage in sexual union: “Have ye not read, that He which made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

Because God, Love, joins them, male and female are not to be put asunder – thus in Jesus’ view it is not an “excellent thing to have no intercourse with a woman.” 

Image

Continuing on the Pharisee’s question on divorce, Jesus doesn’t say divorce should be prohibited, but that it arises as a misunderstanding of the reality of the situation, which is the innate equality between male and female…

Nor are man and wife to be put asunder by a law which does not reflect the true nature of their being – (Jesus) says Moses’ bill of divorcement was given because of the “hardness of men’s hearts, but from the beginning it was not so.” The hardness of men’s hearts causes them to deal inequitably with their wives – in pointing to the beginning, Jesus presents the innate bisexuality and equality of man and woman which society no longer recognized.

Image

We will continue exploring the innate equality of male and female in our next post.  Until then, peace…