Dearest JamesThomas...

by AGuest 68 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  JamesThomas

  Dear Shelby,

  Putting my sense of things into words is, at the very best of times, difficult for me. Sometimes words around a particular subject, or request in this case, do not coalesce right away, so I say nothing for a time to allow things to fall into place. Please know I was not earlier ignoring you.

  My questions for you were attempting to point to what can not be defined as a nameable thing, spirit or otherwise. For to name something implies a limited thing -- for example -- this over hear is Jah; and this over here is not Jah. Does that make sense? To name is to limit and define or outline and circumscribe.

  What I was attempting to touch upon is That which has absolutely no beginning and no end, is limitless and so can not be talked about as an objective thing outside of us or separate from us -- like a JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH, or a JAH, -- can be talked about. (which you do beautifully and lovingly, I might add).

  When we reduce or confine the divine to a nameable deity we open the way to belonging to it (finding ourselves within it's circle), or not belong to it (finding ourselves outside it's circle), which feeds mans inhumanity to man. What I am feebly attempting to point to everyone and everything belongs to unconditionally, no matter the outward circumstance.

  In your story there are these two bright spots, two extra-holy spots, which are labeled with the names of your Gods. What I am referring to has no spots, no place or time that is any less or more holy than any other, because it has no limits or boundaries. It is what everyone and everything foundationally and ultimately IS, and when consciously realized it instantly dissolves all walls and sense of other.....because there is no other. It's all there really IS.

  When all the stories, drama, definitions, separations, deities, beliefs and mental commentary are silent, what remains? What all the grand drama unfolded IN remains. What is THAT? How wide and deep does it go? Does it move, speak, or ever change? Find this, and you find an unspeakable and bottomless purity that is far, far too beautiful and pristine for the grossness of words or names......and is so close as to be your own true being.

  j
• 

  AGuest

  May you have peace!

  I understand what you're saying, dear one. What I don't understand is why you're playing this game of deceit. Both you and I know why you posed the questions you did: you neither intended nor expected a response. In truth, you thought your questions to be so "high", so "lofty," so above my ability to respond, that I couldn't respond, that I would either remain silent, or if I did respond it would be with some off-the-wall, incomprehensible, ambiguous… well, crap… And you want me to believe that your motive for questioning me in private was that you did not want to "embarrass" me by publicly "exposing" my "true" ignorance and letting folks know that, really, I don't know anything. You believe… and want me to believe… that your intention was to be kind by posing your questions in private, and while I thank you for that thought, I have to ask you to be honest here… with yourself… and examine your motive.

  Dear, dear James, please know that I am the first to admit that, when it comes to things such as wisdom, and knowledge, I am ignorant. I am the first to admit that I know nothing with regard to these things, absolutely nothing, Except, to some degree, myself. And what I know about myself is this, which I confess to you and all here… that the things I share with you are NOT mine, that I, in and of myself, do not know these things. But I do know who it is that speaks to me, from where he originates, where he resides, etc. I do not worship what I do not know, nor do I believe He is unknowable. .

  I understand why you do not receive what I share, dear James, because you do not receive the One who shares it. Indeed, you do not even acknowledge his existence. But I do not judge your for it, nor do I hold any malice against you for it - because that is not the way I have been taught.

  I have been where you are, dear James. I "knew" what you just now perceive, like, way back in the 70's. And if there was any alternative to what I know now… what you currently understand is what I would put my faith in. For there is nothing else... and no one else. BUT… while you exist in the belief that that which is unlimited is also unknowable… I now know that I CAN know that which is unlimited, I CAN name it, I CAN see it, hear it, touch it, etc., … because I, too, am unlimited… by means of him. Just as that which is limited is able to comprehend and define that which is limited, that which is UNLIIMITED can do so for that which is UNLIMITED. Light… knows Light, dear one. Light… exists in light… and cannot exist apart from it.

  My Lord is the True Light… that came into the world… to call all those who are children OF the Light… to return to the Light. My journey has begun… and I am loving every minute of it.

  I bid you the greatest of love and peace, and I am

  Your servant and a slave of Christ,

  SJ
• 

  Double Edge

  Interesting thread.
  

  My Lord is the True Light… that came into the world… to call all those who are children OF the Light… to return to the Light. My journey has begun… and I am loving every minute of it.

  Life's journey takes people in different directions. I have experienced the "Light" and would have to agree somewhat with what you are saying. I always read with interest James Thomas' posts, but sometimes I'm left with more questions than answers. However, one thing I do know is that unless someone could truly walk in another's shoes, the validity of each other's criticism is at best suspect.
• 

  AGuest

  May you have peace!

  You seem to have missed the point of the questions asked by James.

  Actually, dear one, I got the point, as I stated to JT in my response to him here. Unfortunately, I believe it is you who missed it.

  They were designed to make you ponder and question whether your definition of God is supported by an examination of true reality. They were meant to help in leading you to awareness.

  Unfortunately, you are in error. They were "designed"... to expose my ignorance. But, really, all dear James had to do was ask and I would have confessed it to him. I am not ashamed of my ignorance, nor do I try to hide it.

  I can understand why James tried to reach out to you in private.

  I don't think you do, actually. James questioned me. In private. And I responded. In private. In the same place as where he approached me, first. There, I asked him whether it would offend him if I responded here. He, however, did not respond. I also sent another message, in another post, asking him to check his IM so as to respond. He did not respond there, either. BUT... and I find it very... ummmm... interesting, really... that he responded here. But once would have to ask, did he have a choice? I mean, I addressed the post to him, so he really didn't have much of a choice, did he? You wish to attribute a bit more of a "pure" motive to dear Jamses than I think exists, dear Trevor. But I don't deal in deception, for there is NO benefit in it. IF James was trying to reach me "in private," then he would have responded IN PRIVATE to my initial response... that was IN PRIVATE. He knew it was there; he had to, because he started the dialogue. Oh, yes, there is one who stated that James hasn't been around. But how can that be? He was "around" enough to respond not only to my other posts, but also to IM me. HE... IM'd me. It would be upon HIM, then, to check as to whether I have responded to HIM, which I did... again, asking permission to respond publicly. He neither confirmed... nor denied. Sooooooo... Now, while I understand his time is probably most precious, so, dear one, is mine. I did not ignore him but gave him the kind consideration I felt was due him. And I don't think he ignored me; per se. Indeed, as I stated, he neither expected nor intended for me to respond. Thus, if he was asking in sincereity (which he apparently wanted me to believe), then it would have been UNLOVING for me not to respond. There... or here.

  It would have been prudent to respond in kind.

  It would have been prudent, dear one, for James to respond to my inquiry to him... in light of the fact that, again, it was he who opened the dialogue. But then, I am not sure I should expect you to get the sense of that logic... and truth. I bid you peace... A slave of Christ, SJ
• 

  codeblue

  
  Double Edge summed it up quite well:

  one thing I do know is that unless someone could truly walk in another's shoes, the validity of each other's criticism is at best suspect.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  but sometimes I'm left with more questions than answers

  sigh.... there probably are not any answers at all. only understanding the context of questions, me thinks.

  A SLAVE OF SATAN AND HIS WHORE DEMONS

  TS
• 

  trevor

  AGuest

  James has asked you some very meaningful questions in private. You could have responded in private or not responded. You have chosen to open a thread using these questions. James has accepted this and politely answered your post. I am impressed by the kindness he continues to show towards you.

  Why accuse him of being deceitful? You seem to be trying to turn an exchange of viewpoints into a personal matter which attacks his integrity .

  What James is guilty of, is daring to ask you to examine your dearly held beliefs. Your response is typical of all religionists who interpret such an approach as an attack on their faith. I think the majority of people on this forum, who regularly read the posts by James Thomas, will realise that you have misread his intentions and do yourself no credit.

  trevor
• 

  unclebruce

  I gotta admit the spagetti GOD is far more plausable and preferable to whatever weird demon inhabits Shelby and James Thomas. By The Way - Isn't a John James Thomas another name for a dick?It's hard to belive that two people could be on the same planet with this drivel let alone the same message board.

  UnkLe NOodlE iN A picKill JAR sCRew LoosAfaIr hOOva MalCONteNTaCHRIsT! BRucE
• 

  AGuest

  Again, may you have peace!

  You are to be commended for your loyal support of James Thomas, and again, I bear him no ill-will or malice; I simply pointed out the truth and asked him to acknowledge it, as well. You appear to believe you know Mr. Thomas' motive, that he was only trying to "enlighten" me... in private. Unfortunately, I disagree that that was his motive and I base my position on the fact that, as I stated to you above, I initially responded to Mr. Thomas in the same way that he questioned me: IN PRIVATE. To which he did not respond... at all. However, although you are not aware of the string of events related to this matter (or perhaps I err and you are in fact aware, which only makes your position more suspect), you have come to a conclusion that I "violated" that privacy without cause.

  Again, Mr. Thomas posed questions; I responded. And again, I was not expected or supposed to, as shown by your position which is that his questions weren't "designed" to be responded to, really, but simply intended to make me "aware." Apparently, you both underestimated my Lord because there were responses. Accurate, truthful, responses. That you cannot receive that truth and the truth of the responses is on you... something you will have to ask and examine your own self about.

  Someone deigned to interrogate me, in detail, dear Trevor, about what it is I put my faith in. And I responded, in detail, that is it not a what, but a whom. I also asked permission as to where I could respond before I did so, as I had nothing to hide. I had no problem responding... publicly or privately. And so far, the only folks who seem to have a problem that I responded thus, indeed, responded at all, are those who, I would venture to guess, understand neither my responses... nor Mr. Thomas' questions. Which I believe also includes you, dear one.

  How about this? How about you... and, hey, why not Mr. Thomas... answer the questions he posed? Share with me, please, dear Trevor, your responses to such questions. But, please, do so here, publicly.

  In the meantime, please know that I have absolutely NO fear of being enlightened. If you have anything that will serve to "free" me any more than I am, I say bring it on. My faith is not so "weak" that I am afraid to hear anything else, entertain any other likelihood. My Lord has not given me a heart of fear... but one of love... and freedom... such that I am "free" to believe whatever I wish.

  So, let's see what it is, specifically, that you... put your faith in. Answer Mr. Thomas' questions, for yourself... or leave me be.

  My peace remains and I remain,

  Your servant and a slave of Christ,

  SJ
• 

  AGuest

  May you have peace!

  You ask:

  What all the grand drama unfolded IN remains. What is THAT?

  It is the "womb" of the Woman, the "free" wife of God, Jeruslam Above... Sarah. It is the [true] Ark... of the Covenant, the "place" from which "all the grand drama" unfolded... and it the place to which it will all return. Some believe the "drama" started with a big bang, a point of origin, from which the universe is expanding... and to which it will eventually contract. Well, that analogy is not so far-fetched, actually.

  How wide and deep does it go?

  It has no boundaries. That it doesn't, however, does not preclude it from being named. True, it cannot be defined in terms of physical boundaries, but that is because it is not and cannot be limited... physically. But... it certainly can be named... and identified.

  Does it move, speak, or ever change?

  No, it does not. However, that which is IN it moves, speaks and changed; that which is OUTSIDE it moves and speaks, but never changes. That is because there is only one thing, or rather one Being that is outside of it... all other things, including my Lord, exist inside of it.

  Find this, and you find an unspeakable and bottomless purity that is far, far too beautiful and pristine for the grossness of words or names...

  Unfortunately, I disagree, for I know that to NOT name it... NOT identify it... is "gross." For it means that such is not worthy of identification, and thus worthy of recognition. That is an error, and a gross one, for It is the same as those who fail to use God's name, believing it too "divine" to be uttered by our unclean lips. Such ones, however, do not know or understand the mercy of God. He knows what we are... what we are made of... what is "in" us. And yet, He PERMITS us to use His name, PERMITS us to speak the unspeakable... to see the pristine... the know the unknowable. That is how limitless HIS love is, dear James T. The only "limit," is that we do so... through the One He sent forth, His Son and Christ, my Lord, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH. It is through that One that we can see the unseeable, hear the unhearable, discern the undiscernable, know the unknownable... speak... the unspeakable.

  Hear and get the sense of it, dear James Thomas:

  It is you who place limits. You, in your assertion that such things ARE unspeakable... teach the greatest limitation: not that that which is divine is SO divine so as not to be spoken... but that we are so undivine that we cannot speak it, no, we can never get to know it completely! You, unfortunately, have not yet tasted of His mercy, so you can come to know such bottomless purity... identify it... and speak about it. You place limits because you do not know. I speak... because I have been granted to know. By means of God's mercy... through Christ.

  and is so close as to be your own true being.

  (Smiling) Yes, dear one... and it is that CLOSENESS to my own true being... that allows me to speak of, identify, what I know. I know me, and I know from where I originated. I know, because I know the One who brought it into existence. If He can name it... by means of His mercy, which He has granted to me, so can I... for He has revealed it to me.

  I ask you, please, do not attempt to limit me by saying that which is true and knowable, and of which we can speak... indeed MUST speak... is unspeakable and unknowlable. I'm sorry, but such gnosticism only serves to limit me... and I have been set free! (John 8:32, 36) Thus, my flesh, my physical presence, no longer limits me so that I cannot discern, name, and identify, that which is beyond me. Spirit... begets spirit... and as a result... knows spirit.

  Again, I bid you the greatest of peace!

  Your servant and a slave of Christ,

  SJ