Paradise on Earth

[onewithhim]

When I learned that the Bible speaks of a restored Garden of Eden and the restoration of mankind to the perfection and endless life that Adam forfeited, I was thrilled. Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?

If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"? I don't think very many people would say that.

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29

[gordsd]

[Replying to Blastcat]

I was at work on my phone when I read your former response. I answered very briefly because it is a bit of a pain for me to type and/or speak into the mic and like what comes out; too, I was working and didn't have a lot of time, but I am glad that you responded as you did in order to force me to clarify a bit. Now, I am at home having a drink.

I am a bit of a contradiction. I was a devout Christian and minister for a while and moved to somewhat of an atheist, then agnostic and now, I think that there is something out there. “Spiritual� is kind of a religious term, and I myself hate the way some people use it as well. Now, back to the Genesis passage. The tree of knowledge and tree of life are front and center in the, if you will, tableau. We all live are lives by certain values or ethos. The editor or author of the Genesis account I believe is about instilling certain values or ethos in its readers; that is, it is a warning about how one lives one's life—without spelling it out specifically.

My "spirituality" if it can be said to exist .. are feelings of awe and reverence, mostly for nature... and of course, that means people, too. It's like the word "love" or "peace".

I do not mean feelings of awe and reverence. I'm not sure where conscience comes from, or a deep sense of will to be moral, fair, humane, caring, but those words which describe what it means to be humane are there. I am not sure about whatever it is that is out there (God), but as we live our lives, we cannot develop relationships of trust and peace without living those certain values which develop trust. Nakedness in the Garden represents being open with who we are and unashamed in sense of acceptance. The loin cloths covering the nakedness represents the innocents that was lost. The hint of deception and the passing of the blame by Adam to the woman destroyed the relationship they once had. The pair could not handle the knowledge of the tree. Anyway, I'm trying to answer your question. Spirituality, in this sense, is understanding the lessons of the story and applying it to our lives so that we can have relationships which are strong with ourselves and those around us—not having to hide who we are or trying to pass the blame of our own actions on to someone else. It is spiritual in the sense that the story is about establishing on ethos on which to live life. It is not meant to be an historical factual account.

[onewithhim]

When I learned that the Bible speaks of a restored Garden of Eden

Although I did once believe it myself, I no longer do, so I want to write this as compassionate as I can. I believe the the story of Adam and Eve is simply a spiritual and allegorical message. For example the two trees: one of knowledge and one of life represent ways of living, whether spiritual, political or kingdoms. Trees are often used allegorically in the Bible—throughout the OT and by Jesus in the gospels. There was no real Adam and Eve from which the human race came from. They are allegorical as well representing how all relationships work, decline or prosper. Also, of course there was no literal Garden of Eden. The Garden, too, is an allegory of spiritual innocence in relationships: with people and God. It seems to me, to interpret the story as historical fact is to completely miss the point of the writer.

I am convinced that the human race has evolved over millions, maybe billions of years very gradually. There is, IMHO, nothing to return to. However, the prophecies concerning the re-appearance of the Garden of Eden can be taken spiritually, allegorically as well. As we learn to live in honest and fair relationships, true to our conscience, spirit of God, represented by the innocent nakedness of Adam and Eve in the Garden, our lives can be filled with happiness, peace and love—which is spiritually, allegorically eating from the tree of life.

Gordsd.....Jesus spoke of the original pair as being real people. (Matthew 19:4-6; Genesis 2:24) So did Jesus' disciples. (Luke 3:38; Romans 5:14; I Corinthians 15:22,45; I Timothy 2:13,14; Jude 14)

[onewithhim]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

hundreds of thousands of children that die from malnutrition each year can just fill up on happiness and peace and love...

Well, the writer of the Genesis account seems to me is saying more than one thing: that there is a way to live which leads to a descent life and a way of heart ache which leads to alienation, and the writer provides an answer for the pain/ alienation from God. However, again, the trees represent more than literal trees, and the Garden itself represents more than a literal Garden of Eden.

I'm also sure you didn't write that post to "convince" anyone

I wrote the response very quickly, but I did want to show that the passage does not have to be interpreted as an historical fact which I think is a mistake.

I don't agree with your viewpoint that A&E and the GoE are metaphorical; as I said, Jesus and his disciples taught that they were real people, and I think that Eden also existed. But I agree that the trees in the account represent much more than mere trees. (1) The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" represented God's right to decide for His creations what was good and what was bad, and when A&E ate from the tree they were in effect saying to Jehovah that they wanted to decide for themselves what was good or bad.

(2) One reference work also says this about the "tree of life": "The expression 'tree of life' is used with regard to true wisdom, the fruitage of the righteous, the realization of a thing desired, and calmness of the tongue. (Proverbs 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; 15:4) Insight on the Scriptures, Vol.II, p.1124.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Blastcat]

I was at work on my phone when I read your former response. I answered very briefly because it is a bit of a pain for me to type and/or speak into the mic and like what comes out; too, I was working and didn't have a lot of time, but I am glad that you responded as you did in order to force me to clarify a bit. Now, I am at home having a drink.

I am a bit of a contradiction. I was a devout Christian and minister for a while and moved to somewhat of an atheist, then agnostic and now, I think that there is something out there. “Spiritual� is kind of a religious term, and I myself hate the way some people use it as well. Now, back to the Genesis passage. The tree of knowledge and tree of life are front and center in the, if you will, tableau. We all live are lives by certain values or ethos. The editor or author of the Genesis account I believe is about instilling certain values or ethos in its readers; that is, it is a warning about how one lives one's life—without spelling it out specifically.

My "spirituality" if it can be said to exist .. are feelings of awe and reverence, mostly for nature... and of course, that means people, too. It's like the word "love" or "peace".

I do not mean feelings of awe and reverence. I'm not sure where conscience comes from, or a deep sense of will to be moral, fair, humane, caring, but those words which describe what it means to be humane are there. I am not sure about whatever it is that is out there (God), but as we live our lives, we cannot develop relationships of trust and peace without living those certain values which develop trust. Nakedness in the Garden represents being open with who we are and unashamed in sense of acceptance. The loin cloths covering the nakedness represents the innocents that was lost. The hint of deception and the passing of the blame by Adam to the woman destroyed the relationship they once had. The pair could not handle the knowledge of the tree. Anyway, I'm trying to answer your question. Spirituality, in this sense, is understanding the lessons of the story and applying it to our lives so that we can have relationships which are strong with ourselves and those around us—not having to hide who we are or trying to pass the blame of our own actions on to someone else. It is spiritual in the sense that the story is about establishing on ethos on which to live life. It is not meant to be an historical factual account.

I like your view on the nakedness of A&E. That is very true, as I see it. Before they rebelled, their nakedness represented the fact that they were innocent, open, unashamed. After their disobedience, they suddenly realized that their relationship with Jehovah was changed because of what they did; they "realized they were naked," as it were. And you picked up on the passing-the-buck to Eve! That was pretty selfish and cowardly of Adam.

They already had knowledge. God had undoubtedly instructed them on everything they needed to know to take care of the earth and each other. He wouldn't have just turned them loose in their surroundings without instructions. They were perfect and more highly intelligent than we can know. They also understood what the consequences would be if they disobeyed. They deliberately flaunted their desires to run their own show in Jehovah's face, and eventually died. Even though they brought death into the world, Jehovah's purpose for perfect humans to live on the earth forever was not thwarted.

[catnip]

[Replying to post 42 by catnip]





[center]Where the Kingdom be at?
Part Two :.. Incomprehensible answers[/center]

1. Where does childhood diseases fit in to this paradise idea of heaven on earth right now?

The hope is that the more of us that are spiritually healed, the better the whole world will be. Conversely, the fewer who enter in, the meaner and less healthy the world becomes.

The disembodied "hope".
Who's hope are you talking about? Yours, mine or everyone in the universe?

To me, your statement is ambiguous as I can interpret it to mean a few different things. In order for you to understand the magnitude of how confusing I think your answer is, here are some examples of how I can interpret your answer:

________________

Possible interpretations of your answer to question 1.

"I hope that the more people believe that something is true, the more it's going to be true."

Or... it could mean:

"I hope that the more people believe in my God, the less there will be childhood diseases".

It could also mean:

"I really do hope that my beliefs are true"

Or it could mean:

"Childhood diseases are the fault of people who don't have faith in my god."

Or, much much worse, it could even be taken to mean:

" I hope that horrible things like childhood diseases will continue until everyone on the planet has faith in my god".

I don't know for sure if any of these are what you meant.
_________________

2. I'm an agnostic.. am I in the kingdom of Heaven ?

No, but as Jesus tells those not there yet that it is all around them, among them, upon them and even within them--they need to strive for it.

Hmmm

Im not IN the kingdom, but you say that:

"it is all around them, among them, upon them and even within them"

I'm not in the Kingdom but it's around me, among me, upon me, and even within me?

If the kingdom of heaven was WATER... using those words, I'd pretty much think that I was in it, alright !

Almost DROWNING in it !!

I'm sorry, but your answer doesn't make sense to me.

3. What are you "seeing" with "Spiritual eyes" that a secular person like myself cannot "see"?

If the eye be single . . . we walk by faith, not by sight . . . in short, spiritual vision is not the same as what you perceive through your eyes.

So, when you use the word "seeing", you don't really mean "seeing". Because the word "seeing" usually entails "sight".

I am guessing here that when you used the term "seeing" you meant "having faith".
Is that correct?

So, you were saying that I don't have faith and that you do?

Those who have faith in something, generally do have faith in what they have faith in. And those of us who don't have faith in something generally don't have faith in what they don't have faith in.

Well, if you meant that.. it makes sense.
But all tautologies do.

I don't see the point you are trying to make.
Sorry.

If I didn't understand you correctly then I still don't see the point that you are trying to make. And I'm QUITE sure that you are trying very HARD to make one. It's just that I can't make it out.

So, I wonder if you mean that I'm not in the Kingdom because I don't have faith that I'm in the Kingdom.

You have faith, and I don't.
Is that what you are saying?

4. Why is there evil and suffering in the "Kingdom of Heaven"?

There isn't any.

There isn't any evil or suffering in the Kingdom that you say exists RIGHT NOW.

I see suffering and evil easily enough.
Maybe I need those "spiritual eyes" again.

I aint seeing what your seeing.

We are healed by faith or, in other words, we become whole and whole means in union with God and Christ--we become one. This, you will note, is not taught by the newer versions of Christianity.

I don't care who is currently teaching what.
I am asking for your opinions.

I also don't know how children suffering from childhood diseases are "healed by faith". Many of them die. In fact, children who grow up mostly die.

But as far as I can tell, people in what you call Hell are being healed by "medical science" when possible. People and children who are INSIDE the Kingdom, probably don't need medical science at all. Must be nice to have perfect bodies that way.

So, right now, I'm guessing that you might not be talking about PHYSICAL childhood diseases... or about PHYSICAL healing... And again, doesn't compute.

I'm completely lost.
And I thought I didn't understand you BEFORE I asked so many questions !
I'm way more confused after I read your answers, I'm afraid.

We have SERIOUS language difficulties !

5. What about the concept of "Hell"...?

Hell is to be apart from God. So, in short, it is not to be in the kingdom of Heaven (God) with the Lord of Hosts. And it means that here in this world we can be in hell with weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Two classes of people:
Those who profess to be in the Kingdom ( maybe that's your class ) , and all the others, who don't. ( surely my class )

I'm going to guess here and put you in the first category.. It's just a guess.
I'm completely lost right now.

Apparently, all those who are not in the Kingdom are currently ( or will in the future, I don't really know what you mean ) weeping and gnashing their teeth. Since I'm not an insider to your faith, I must be weeping and gnashing my teeth, or I sure will be in the future.. or something like that. Maybe I need to have those "spiritual eyes" to notice that I'm doing that.

I must be in Hell, even though I never notice it.
Interesting.

Oh well, Hell doesn't seem too bad at all ! If it was really that bad, you'd think I would notice ! I wonder if you think that people IN the Kingdom never get sick or never gnash or cry?

6. Are we living eternally in this "Kingdom"?

I think that in the long run we all end up there. In short, there is an eternal aspect to our natures that does not die. Our spirit goes back to God who gave it.

The Kingdom is HERE and NOW, and we will all end up THERE in the LONG RUN.
It's as if you are saying that the here and now is there and then.

Your language is almost impenetrable to this outsider.

The hope is that we can heal this world through faith.

"The hope".

I wonder who's hope you are talking about.
I sure don't have that hope...

You have a hope that faith heals childhood diseases.
Do you have a hope that medical science does, too?

Because when it comes to medical science, it's based on evidence.
There IS documentation .... And now for an anecdote: brought my kids to the hospital.. they were healed for some reason. No doctors used faith to heal them, either. It was the mumbo jumbo they like to call "medical science"... That's what people in hell seem to use to heal kids instead of faith, you see.

In other words: NOW.

Right.. SOME OF US are already there NOW... you keep saying that and then you also said that "I think that in the long run we all end up there.".

I guess the "hope" is that everyone will be there, because then, the childhood diseases would all be healed. Too bad for all the kids until then, I suppose. If only people like me would believe in your god FOR THE SAKE OF JERRY'S KIDS.

Blastcat should do it for the children, the monster!. Do I WANT them to suffer so needlessly? Don't I KNOW that faith magically heals?

And yet, I only hold that hope--it may be that some are destined to utter destruction. But see, I take the lake of fire as burning up that which holds us back.

Oh, so the lake of fire only does us good. It burns away that nasty evil agnostic stuff.
Let's all have the non-believers jump in, then.

Believers don't have to partake in the fun of it.
Too bad for the believers.

I'm not making much sense of this at all...
It's way too rich for me.

If you want more questions, just ask for them.
I'll try my best to formulate questions that might help me understand what it is you are trying to say.

Yeah. You seem to be missing the point. I thought maybe this video might help you out. Jim Carrey has an entire series of these things, very inspiring, very simple:



I think it all started with Jim Shadyac's documentary, I AM. You might be able to find it somewhere. It is well worth watching and very scientifically based. I can try to explain to you what Christ was trying to teach--but so many Christians don't get--or I can approach it from a much more organic source sans a particular ancient religious discipline.

[onewithhim]

LAKE OF FIRE:

This expression occurs only in the book of Revelation and is clearly symbolic. The Bible gives its own explanation and definition of the symbol by stating: "This means the second death, the lake of fire." (Rev.20:14; 21:8) So it symbolizes the death from which no one is resurrected.

It is further evident that this lake of fire is symbolic from the context of references to it in Revelation. Death is said to be hurled into this lake of fire. Death cannot, obviously, be hurled or burned. Moreover, the Devil who is an invisible spirit person, is thrown into the lake....and being a spirit he cannot be hurt by literal fire. (Rev.20:10; see also Exodus 3:2 where an angel is in a burning bush & it doesn't affect him.)


("Gehenna" and "the fire prepared for the Devil & his angels" are also symbolic. They mean basically the same thing as "the lake of fire.")

[gordsd]

[Replying to onewithhim]

spoke of the original pair as being real people.

That is true. But then we are back to debating whether or not the Bible is the word of God or whether or not it is without error, contradictory, etc. All allegories are written as if the metaphors are actual. I believe what the writer/editor of Genesis was trying to say was different from what Jesus and Paul was trying to teach. I do not believe the Bible with all of the different writers and books is a united unit, but i do believe that many of the books and passages in the Bible, studied individually are.

They already had knowledge. God had undoubtedly instructed them on everything they needed to know

I think that is reading into the narrative beyond the point of the narrative. I think we just need to think about what the writer was trying to say. What is the message? Don't work yourself to death, be like God take a break and rest. Your mate who has your children is like part of you--like one of your ribs. Don't use your knowledge to get ahead. Life is more than that. If you want to have a pleasant life (like having a really nice garden with food and flowers) do not use your knowledge to get ahead, and then blame the serpent and woman for fooling you. When you try to take advantage of others, then you will have something to hide (loin cloths). The free innocents of being completely honest will be lost.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 57 by gordsd]

There are at least three problems as I see it, concluding that the Edenic account is allegory; firstly the garden itself is presented as having been in a specific real location (mentioning two rivers that still exist today - the Euphrates and the Tigris), stories and fables are usually (not always, granted, but often) presented in vague non-literal locations "once upon a time, in a land far far away...)

Another is that the bible presents a genealogical list for Jesus (a historical figure) tracing back to Adam, so we have the awkward problem of somewhere on that list, an allegorical individual begetting a real historical figure.

Further Jesus is reported to referring to Adam and Eve, not allegories for all mankind but in a discussion on marriage and divorce, indicating not only that they existed but that they were real, not figurative, individuals.

JW



RELATED POSTS

If God knew Adam needed a mate, why did he make Adam to wait for her?
viewtopic.php?p=857016#p857016

For more details please go to other posts related to...

THE GARDEN OF EDEN , ADAM and ... THE DECEPTION OF EVE

[gordsd]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

firstly the garden itself is presented as having been in a specific real location

Just because a real place is mentioned in a story does not make the rest of the story true.

Another is that the bible presents a genealogical list for Jesus

. . .

Further Jesus is reported to referring to Adam and Eve, not allegories for all mankind but in a discussion on marriage and divorce, indicating not only that they existed

You and Onewithin are writing to one who does not believe that the Bible is the word of God, without error, without contradictions, etc. The writers who, in the NT, wrote about Jesus, and Paul who wrote about the Christ, were both trying to make theological and ethical points. At that time, discussing the authentic historicity of the account would have made no sense. They were trying to free their people from oppressive beliefs--for example the Temple cult, hubris in the Roman church, immorality, etc.

Now we are discussing the possibility of a return to the Garden of Eden--which accepts the Garden/story as an historical fact. To me, this is a mistake--because everything I/we know about history tells us that God does not intervene in history. Such a thought does comfort in a time of turmoil, but it is a false hope--like a drug induced dream. Rather, to believe that we can make the world a better more fair place by working together, to me, seems far more believable. If we believe in ourselves, at least we have a fighting chance. If we believe in fantastic tells which do not, IMHO, seem believable, we have lost the battle already.

It seems to me, if one thinks critically about the Genesis account, and questions the point of God creating two literal trees to eat from and commanding the original couple to eat from one and not the other--the conclusions is that it is too fantastic to be true; however, again, to me, the story asks a deep moral question: "How are you 'feeding' your soul, spirit, mind, etc.--there are life consequences.

The point is not whether or not the story is literally true; the point is whether or not the meaning of the story can help us be better people, and I believe it has made me better by forcing me to question the way I feed my spirit.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 55 by catnip]




[center]Where the Kingdom be at?
Part Three: .. Not getting the point AT ALL[/center]

Yeah. You seem to be missing the point.

Yeah. You seem to not be explaining the point in a way that I can comprehend.

I'm not quite convinced that you ever were there.. so I won't say "Back to the drawing board". Time to work on expressing your ideas in a way that would be comprehensible to others.. Because if some people can't understand just what it is you are talking about ... you still might be correct.. but how would those people KNOW IT?

And more importantly, how do YOU know it, if you can't explain it to an outsider of your faith, how are you explaining it to yourself? what LANGUAGE are you using, what REASONING? You may just be feeling your way around. Feeling and knowing are two separate things... I hope you can appreciate that. So, if people "agree" with you, how would you know if they understand you, or just "feel" that they do?

Is "feeling" the method by which you establish the truth of propositions? What is your criteria for "knowing"?

Doesn't it ring an alarm bell that some people don't seem to have a CLUE what you are talking about?

How do account for my inability to comprehend you?
( I can't seem to break the habit of asking people questions when I don't understand. Don't feel that you have to answer any of them )

I thought maybe this video might help you out. Jim Carrey has an entire series of these things, very inspiring, very simple:

I thought maybe that since you bother to tell us that you know some deep truth that you might be able to at least explain what it was.. and so far.. you lost me.

But maybe you can get someone else to explain what you cant. Hence, Jim Carrey to the rescue. I watched the "moving" video... It was lovely.

I'm not inspired at all.
Something that is based on poor logic might be simplistic, but simply fails. Jim is obviously well meaning and intelligent. His logic sucks in this video.

I'm not even sure at this point if Jim accurately represents what your point is that I am missing here.

In the video, it's as if Carrey is denying the reality of human identity. He sounds like some kind of a Buddhist.

Denying reality doesn't impress me very much.
I feel the same way about creationists and flat earthers and 911 truthers and global warming deniers. So, if you were trying to explain bits of your reasoning by using that video.. I could imagine you to be a "denier".

That's not very impressive to me at all.. deny bits of reality that you don't like... I'll take a pass. Of course, I have to GUESS at your true position, because as I keep telling you.... you are INCOMPREHENSIBLE. At this point you have GIVEN UP trying to explain yourself. You point to others in the hope that they will do your job for you.

So, I have to wonder... DOES Jim accurately represent exactly what you are trying to say in here.. by .. this idea we are all IN ( but not all of us ) Paradise? We are deep in it, but some of us ( people like myself ) just can't SEE it? With those "spiritual eyes"?

I'm trying to make any sense from what you have been writing, and as you might have noticed, I FAIL. I MISS THE POINT COMPLETELY.

But, I'd sure like to have a conversation with Jim.. wouldn't you?

Jim Carrey would want us to believe for some reason that we don't have and aren't stuck with the persistent experience of BEING somebody separate. He seems to hint that ego is an illusion. He asks "why don't we feel it?" ... yeah. Why don't we?

I think that's just the way we have evolved. We can't help being the humans that we happen to be. With brains that work the very peculiar way they happen to work, living in cultures that we happen to live in, and on a planet that we happen to all live on.

We are "just" energy, he want's us to believe. We are maybe just "particles" floating around in space quite aimlessly, without rhyme nor reason. Well, Jim, I'm sorry, but we are "more" than "just" energy in motion. We have consciousness, we have self awareness, and we have the ability to create metaphors like "We are just energy".

It's nice poetry, I suppose.
Points for that.

I don't usually just "feel" in order to know if something is true or not. His very nice appeal to EMOTION is what I call another logical fail. I don't care HOW nice Jim is... that's NOT how I evaluate a person's reasoning. Yours is incomprehensible. His sucks.

Maybe you "feel" that when a person is articulate, anything the he says is logically sound. News for you.. "NOT THE CASE". Each and every statement has to be examined for soundness... case by dreary case.

Feelings are not identical with rational arguments.

With your Kingdom on earth idea.. I can't even get past the discovery stage.. and that means that I don't UNDERSTAND a word. I'm not getting my hopes up.

Your explanation only serves to generate questions.. that I will not ask at this time.
But believe me when I tell you that "They are available."

I don't ask a ton of questions when I understand what my debate opponent is talking about. You can imagine about 20 or so questions that I could ask. I wont make the effort at this time. If you ask for more questions, I will provide. My GOAL in these debates is to understand my opponents, debate the merits of their ideas and IDEALLY, reach some kind of agreement. What I USUALLY find is that with so many Christians, I can't get past the very first stage.. which I call "The Discovery Stage".

You are an extreme example of that kind of language mess.

So much for understanding.
So much for debating any issue.
So much for reaching any agreements.

Carrey uses very bad logic. And when it comes to logical arguments, very bad logic takes ALL the points away.

Carrey is well meaning. So he is at least a LITTLE above zero...
His intentions seem to be well placed, but now he has to work on that darn REASONING.

I think he is adding to the world's irrationality, so all in all.. I can not at all agree with his methods or his message. Both are very poor indeed. He is, in my estimation BELOW ZERO.. he does more damage than good, in my opinion, even WITH his charming ( but possibly completely illusory ) personality and great smile.

I don't need any of that mumbo-jumbo to "be nice" or whatever the outcome of his ideas are supposed to be. "Think like me" seems to be one of his main messages. He should stick to comedy. He is pretty darn good at THAT.

I don't have to think like him to be nice. Or to be a good person, or to be happy... productive.. so thank you very NOT Mr. Carrey. Do the asparagus in your teeth bit again.

I think it all started with Jim Shadyac's documentary, I AM. You might be able to find it somewhere. It is well worth watching and very scientifically based.

If you can't find it.. I'll take a pass on trying to find it.
Give us a link if you think it's that important.

I can try to explain to you what Christ was trying to teach--

Go right ahead.

I love to read and comment upon what Christians have to say ...
Comprehending and analyzing and then debating those ideas are three of the reasons I hang out in here.

but so many Christians don't get--

Never mind then? If someone doesn't understand you, it's all THEIR fault?
You got the principles of communication quite UPSIDE DOWN.

If you have a message, it's up to YOU to communicate it in a way that readers can comprehend. Telling us that some people just don't GET IT is absolutely USELESS.

But if you don't try to explain yourself, nobody is really going to understand. So far, you have been near nigh incomprehensible. Maybe that's why some Christians just don't seem to "GET IT"

As far as I'm concerned, if people went out of their way to tell me that they hardly understood ONE WORD it would be an intolerable situation. I like to be understood.

But that's just me.

or I can approach it from a much more organic source sans a particular ancient religious discipline.

"Organic source".. sounds like you are opening up a health food store.
What on organic EARTH are you talking about?

As long as you are comprehensible, you can use just about any approach that you are most comfortable with. People can adapt. It just seems to me that right now, you don't seem to have an approach that works very well at all. We haven't been able to get past the discovery phase.. and I am losing hope that we can.