Discussion with a minister

OBSERVE YOUR REACTIONS WHEN YOU READ MY DEAR FRIEND.


>
M. J. Young Thank you for your book (insert appropriate emoticon here). I shall
> attempt to reply without writing another book of my own.
>
> You wrote, "Become as a child, was one insight Jesus left for us to
> understand, a child has not yet become identified to anything that is
> why Jesus spoke of children and the comparison to kingdom of heaven."
>
> I have probably heard or read at least twenty possible explanations for
> what Jesus meant when He said that we should be like children.

Ozay wrote:.......Yet there was only one interpretation Jesus meant, and only one interpretation can be come to when one follows the way, that is why I can speak with confidence that the interpretation I have come to is the one Jesus meant, and you have highlighted in your statement the reason why one must NOT be an intellectual scholar, because of that very reason, if there are 20 interpretations of Jesus meaning, then it makes all of them void, you don't even know if you have a 1 in 20 chance of even choosing the right interpretation, because if they are all intellectuals then they may all be wrong, the; "Become as a child" is not of the intellectual there is only one interpretation and that is about knowing thyself and also the god that is in the self, when there was Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before the eat from the tree of knowledge between good and evil they were as children, this innocence is derived from a non intellectual aspect of the self.


M. J. Young wrote......I personally think that what distinguishes children is their ability to
> trust. Everything else that is claimed about children--their innocence,
> their humility, their obedience, and a dozen other things--proves not to
> be true, but children always trust others until we teach them not to do so.

Ozay wrote.......A child has not been "educated" And knows nothing of the bible or Jesus, but I child Knows what Jesus taught without learning, faith love and trust, this is all because of innocence, and innocence comes from not knowing the ways of the world interpretated through the intellect i e intelligence.

M. J. Young wrote......However, I would not be so arrogant as to say that my understanding is
> right and yours is wrong. I would only say that since my understanding
> is one of many, your explanation has no more validity than mine.

Ozay wrote.......I would not be arrogant either to say I know, what I am saying is simply that I know I am right because I came to know myself and this interpretation is the only correct interpretation, the rest is just conjecture of the intellect, but when you know the language of the heart then you know what Jesus was talking about, Jesus could not make it more clear. Of course my interpretation to you has no more weight than all the other interpretations because for you it is all intellectual and about 'BELIEF', my understanding comes from "KNOWING THYSELF" in this there can be no mistake, but for you and the "BELIEF" you hold any 1 of 20, makes that whatever 'BELIEF' you hold has no value, that is the unfortunate state of affairs in Christianity because there are so many scholars who consider they have the right 'BELIEF' Know I ask you as a teacher to answer me this; what is the greatest truth, BELIEF OF TRUTH..........OR KNOWING TRUTH? If you have only "knowing truth" as your choice then you will only come to one answer or no answer as you will not be arrogant enough to argue about it, because you will accept that you "DO NOT KNOW" One must be brave enough to say they do not know the answer, and like wise if you have come to the answer then one must also be brave enough as I am to say they "KNOW THE ANSWER"

M. J. Young wrote...... You could argue that God has revealed to you that this is the correct
> understanding of the text; but then, Joseph Smith argued that God
> revealed to him that all the churches of the world were wrong and he was
> needed to start the Mormon church so that the right religion would be
> restored to the earth. I cannot argue against your subjective belief
> (you would call it knowledge), but neither can you argue from it. Your
> proofs must be objective--not that this is something you know, but that
> this is something you can demonstrate from the text itself, not because
> a text which might mean any of twenty things might mean what you claim,
> but because you can demonstrate from the text that this is what the text
> means.

Ozay wrote.......In truth there can be no objective truth, and that is a truth in itself, for instance, if I observe the colour red it is interpretated by my mind, this is subjective, mind is subjective, your vision is interpretated by mind therefore that is subjective, further if you check out a research study that was carried out on cats for instance that was brought up in an environment where visually the cats were only allowed visual stimulus of horizontal lines for a certain period of time directly after it was born the cat would only be able to observe anything that had horizontal lines its ability to observe vertical lines was not there, this experiment was repeated several times, which consolidate the truth I have come up with everything that is of mind is subjective therefore everything you believe is subjective and the only thing you can "KNOW IS THAT EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE" this state of being is that which Jesus spoke of and it is this "KNOWING" that I have experienced the same as Jesus, you cannot learn this only follow the way he went, that is if you can see where he went some times the mind is so intellectual that the intellect veils the path that Jesus pointed out.

>
M. J. Young wrote...... You wrote, "Do you think that just because Christian hold up the banner
> of Jesus they will reach God realisation above and before anyone else?"
>
> What I think is so alien to that that the question itself approaches
> meaninglessness. To answer it, I am going to copy portions from one of
> my books, "Do You Trust Me", and hope you won't be offended that I
> choose to send what I have already written rather than write new material.

Ozay wrote.......The question cut to its fundamental meaning is a simple question that only requires a simple answer which is rephrased here: Many Christians are under the illusion that because they chant the name "JESUS CHRIST" that they will be saved, and by this belief they divide themselves from the rest of humanity, and also from the higher nature Christ or his apostles spoke of, this one wrong understanding and action will mean they cannot come to the kingdom of heaven because to enter there one must be complete and to be complete one is in unity with the self and this will make unity with ALL GODS CREATION.
>
> *****
M. J. Young wrote.........For many Christians, the “big picture” which explains all of life
> goes something like this. God wanted company, so he created man to live
> in harmony with Him forever. Man, though, derailed this plan, eating the
> fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and so destroying
> his fellowship with God. God then had to initiate Plan B, the backup
> plan. He had to send Jesus to die to get man out of this mess man had
> created for himself, so that He could put everything back the way it was
> intended originally.

Ozay wrote.......One must understand the first point in this...You say god wanted company, that already is wrong, god is without company. Now here again eating from the tree of fruit of Knowledge between good and evil this was the point of derail, if you cannot see at this point this consolidate what I am saying god is and intellect is the anti of god, right here it states it and one would do well to STOP right here and contemplate this meaning further instead of going on and on and lost into the intellect, god cannot be found underneath torrents of intellect the intellect must stop before the heart can be unveiled with all its secrets..

>
M. J. Young wrote...... The problems with this explanation of the world are serious. I once
> received a letter from an atheist who used this view as proof that God
> did not exist. After all, either God could not foresee Adam’s fall or He
> could not prevent it, and either way that meant God was impotent, and
> not God at all.

Ozay wrote.......I can't see any of that.

>
M. J. Young wrote......Besides, there are no good “Plan B’s”; if they were good, they’d be Plan
> A. God does not have backup plans, because God does not need backup
> plans. Everything is unfolding exactly as He foresaw, and all that
> happens is according to plan.


Ozay wrote.......None of this is in the heart, it is all useless.


M. J. Young wrote...... Fundamentally, you see, the notion of God sending Jesus to correct our
> unexpected mistake is flawed, and not at all what the Bible teaches.
> Jesus, we are told, was “the lamb slain before the foundation of the
> world.” [Revelation 13:8] That is, before Adam fell, even before Adam
> had been created, even before there was light, already the price of our
> redemption had been paid through the crucifixion and resurrection which
> would appear in time yet thousands of years from that moment. This was
> not God’s “plan B”.

Ozay wrote.......Here you are expecting people to fall into a system of belief and blindly walk the walk you are walking.
One must first know god, without that fundamental understanding nothing here has any value..The bible teaches, the Bible gives a method a path to follow inside the self, it is a path of purification and that purification is a cleansing of the mind in order to see god. Stuffing the mind up with intellect is just anti Christ and anti God.
>
M. J. Young wrote...... That, though, means that all of this actually is God’s “fault”, as it
> were. He could have prevented it—all the suffering, all the pain, all
> the death, all the tears; the famines and the earthquakes and the floods
> and the storms; the starving children and the dying elderly; the
> cruelty, the war, the bitterness. God could have avoided all this. He
> certainly could have seen that we were going to sin and suffer, and
> prevented it all. He did not need to create us; He did not need to
> create anything. Presumably, too, He could have found a way to create
> creatures who would not fall. He chose to do this, to make us, knowing
> that we were going to go through all of these terrible pains. He did
> this to us. It really is all His fault.

Ozay wrote.......If it is the fault of god then it cannot be a fault it is just as it is, only mind distinguises fault and no fault good and bad, evil etc mind was created so that the human animal could survive on the animal level, therefore all conjecture made above is of mind and therefore only existant in the mind of man suffering is mans choice because he has mind, sin only comes into the equation where there is the mind of man, when there is no mind there is no sin, there can be no guilt, guilt comes from the morality, and morality comes from the mind which chooses what is good what is bad what is right what is wrong and this morality changes from one culture to the next it is all wrong, where there is no mind there is no evil but only the esence of god which is the life force we call LOVE.

>
M. J. Young wrote......Why, then, did He do it?

Ozay wrote.......He didn't man created himself, because he is made in the image of god, he is the rain drop that one day will enter the ocean.

>
M. J. Young wrote...... Somewhere before all time and space, in some sense we cannot understand
> outside all time and space, God existed. He existed in that state we
> call Trinity, three persons unified in one, in some way that we cannot
> completely understand or describe; but there was love within that union.
> God saw that it was good for there to be persons who shared love, and He
> wanted there to be more persons sharing more love. He wanted something
> we would call children, but children who knew Him and loved Him genuinely.
>

Ozay wrote.......I tell you god is found in no time and that is where I found him, but in order to do this mind has to be gone, I am a witness to that fact.
One can only be a witness to this I am. You speak of God as if he is separated from us, but this is not where god is at god is the very source of unity, it is the life force of everything, and you fcan only come to see this by experiencing this yourself, as I have done.


M. J. Young wrote......We know that He created the angels; we cannot say with certainty when He
> created them relative to when He created us, nor even whether that
> question makes sense. In the angels He had devoted servants—but even
> with the limited freedom He gave them, He did not get children, beings
> like Himself. He certainly knew that He was not going to get children
> that way. Perhaps He wanted devoted servants as well; perhaps they were
> made as a necessary step toward making us. Angels did not truly
> understand love.

Ozay wrote.......Creation is God, everything therefore is Gods children, you see this is all conjecture everything one expects from mind and this has no worth where God is concerned, even more reason why you must understand the true path to God is not the intellect, I do not wish to offend your ego, but I I do that will be unfortunate, but none of this has anything to show how to come to God in yourself, it is just useless and leading others into darkness.

>
M. J. Young wrote...... Thus He created us, knowing that we would fall, and that because we fell
> we would suffer. That suffering is an essential part of the process. It
> is why we can learn love, and the angels cannot. We can take risks,
> trusting each other and being hurt for it, and learning to trust again.
> We can make sacrifices, giving up something we desire or accepting
> something we would avoid, for the sake of someone else. We can love,
> precisely because it costs something to do so. If it cost us nothing, we
> could not learn love.

Ozay wrote......We were never created, we always were, it is the animal that suffers because it has been given instincts, the instincts is not only in the animal of man the lower nature but now has also been given to the ego so this means that when the ego is in jeopardy the biological part of the animal will also reacte ie fight or flight or repression which amounts to sin in the body, this ego again is the cause of anti Christ. MIND.

>
M. J. Young wrote...... Nor could we learn trust. If no one and nothing ever failed us, trust
> would not be an issue. It would be there, as simple as that. It is
> because of risk that trust has meaning; it is because of pain that risk
> has meaning.

Ozay wrote.......It is because of mind that anything has meaning because meaning is minds interpretating that which just IS, therefore in light of God needs no interpretation, mind has the ability to give the path to god which no other animals may have, yet that cannot be known for sure, yet man has to understand that mind used in correct fashion with reasoning is the path to annihilation of its very own nature, here when done is the Kingdom of heaven here is where suffering ends


>
M. J. Young wrote...... God created Adam knowing that Adam would bring death into the world,
> along with all the pain and suffering which we experience, because it
> was the only way God could produce sons and daughters for Himself—beings
> who loved and trusted, because they understood that love and trust meant
> opening yourself to risk and pain. All of this suffering, all of this
> evil, has a purpose: it forms us into loving trusting children of God.


Ozay wrote.......God and Adam one is the father and the other is the son, the cloud, the raindrop, the sea though mind has given them labels in truth they are one and the same they are though apparently seperated yet the very same substances as Adam and god and man.

>
M. J. Young wrote...... Then into this world God came, and showed us how to serve, how to
> sacrifice, how to suffer and even die for the sake of others. He showed
> us what love means. He always loved us, and He was always willing to
> suffer for us; but to suffer for us, He had to become like us, live in
> our world of pain, and take that pain upon Himself. He did more than
> that, but He did not do less than that.

Ozay wrote.......God was already in this world there could not be a world without god, it was the form of the animal shaped by the clay called god that appeared that is all, he did not show us love we are already love, it is only MIND that veils this, and it is mind that suffers not love not god, Jesus was so pure for him it was not suffering but for you with mind it is suffering, that was why he could allow the romans to put him on the cross, he did not have the thought of death in the way you do and by this there is no suffering.


>
M. J. Young wrote...... Eventually the risk, the pain, the suffering, the evil will all be gone.
> We will live in a world in which there is only good. Yet we will have
> learned to love, to put the needs of others before our own, to serve and
> sacrifice and care about others. We will have grown beyond selfishness,
> but not beyond self awareness. God will have His children, beings who
> like Him love each other.

Ozay wrote.......There is no evil outside of mind, and Good is only existent when one believes there is BAD. without such belief good and evil cannot exist everything just "IS" Love cannot be learned, it is an experience that only those who can loose mind can experience this is divine love not the love of attachment desire and obsession so many convince themselves is love this kind of love is associated to the lower self. God will be god in his children, that is love and god are one and the same when you strip away the mind you will be god a son of god one raindrop and one ocean.


>
M. J. Young wrote...... We live in the midst of the pain, and it is difficult for us to have a
> proper perspective on our own condition. God saw the end from the
> beginning. He knows, He knew, all that would happen if He spoke those
> first words, if He brought the universe into existence and placed man
> upon the earth. He counted the cost; He measured the suffering. He also
> sees the outcome, what we shall be. We have His assurance that the
> finished product is worth the cost, that the pain and effort that goes
> into making us His children is a price worth paying by us, by Him, by
> the universe, to have millions of children made in His image, sharing
> love with Him and with each other, for the eternity to come.
>
> We trust that He is right. That is our faith.


Ozay wrote.......When there is "KNOWING" there is no need for trust, because there is no pain, trust is just a mental concept, yet a trait of the whole, not as a singular but as a whole. There is no begining and there is no end there is no past and no future when one has come to KNOW god in the self there is only the present and that present is the eternal moment, yet even moment does not define that eternity one comes to knowing god in this way. Again this is an example of a mind crammed with all kinds of useless intellect where it has no inner meaning but rather day dreaming.

>
> *****
>
M. J. Young wrote...... If you took the time to read that, you should understand that I do not
> think Christianity is at all about holding up a banner of Jesus, or
> being part of an organization, nor even holding certain specific
> understandings of particular doctrines. That also means that I do not
> have any reason to defend nor basis to condemn any of those
> organizations. But when Jesus came to earth, He was God on our level;
> and He invited us to get to know Him, and so get to know God.

Ozay wrote.......Yes I took the time to rad it and you would have read my comments, however this is a rarety that I should fill my mind with such intellect, which is anti God, what I have seen is that you have put yourself as an intellectual authority which basically blocks you from coming to know god, this is a superior status of the ego, in order to know god you must step down and humble yourself, this superior intellect is just the ego identifying that is knows better than others it is given power by other egos the more admiration it recieves the more power the evil of ego will attain yet when it is challenged the ego will take offence and from there any amount of self defence mechanism will take place, not just this if this ego feels defeated then it will attack the body this is called sin, it is symbolically represented in the physical body as tension.


>
M. J. Young wrote...... I have no idea what you mean by "God realisation". If you mean we will
> be like God, we were created that way so everyone is already there. If
> you mean we will be God, that will never happen, because God is not
> interested in making Himself bigger but in creating others like Himself.
> If you mean coming to be exactly like Him, I don't believe anyone ever
> does so in this life, but some get closer than others--and I think it
> judgmental for anyone (including you) to suggest that he knows that
> other people individually are not getting closer to God and to being
> God-like. We do not know what these people would be like without God's
> work begun in their lives, nor do we know which truly are becoming His
> children and which are hiding in the organizations.

Ozay wrote.......If you have no idea what I mean by god realiseation then this information should make a thirst inside of you to understand if you are coming from the heart. But Your idea again is based on your belief what you "THINK GOD IS" This interpretation which you have read from a book, yet a child already knows god better than this, and it is the like of such a fallacy as yours that will be given to the child, where he was already closer to god than this fallacy that has been given, he will think god only lives in his imagination (BELIEF). How can you decide to have a belief and then from that belief create an argument? As I say when you have experienced god then if others are teaching what they 'BELIEVE' what god is then it is not a judgement for me to "KNOW" that what you are teaching is not complete and mostly incorrect that is not a belief that is"KNOWING" that I have, and again I ask the same question to you what is the greatest truth to have;...BELIEF OF TRUTH? OR EXPERIENCE AND BY THAT KNOWING TRUTH?


>
M. J. Young wrote...... I therefore also must reject any argument that is based on the
> appearances of the lives of others. Jesus made it very clear that this
> was not ours to judge, and you, as gentle as you have been about it,
> have very clearly judged that because I am a scholar I cannot also be a
> child of God becoming more like Him. You are mistaken. I cannot prove
> that I am a child of God with a very real relationship with Him, but it
> is not for me to prove nor for you to disprove, any more than that I
> would attempt to prove that you do not have a relationship with God
> through Jesus Christ if you claim that you do.

Ozay wrote.......For me there is no argument we either accept the truth by "KNOWING" or we stay as we are forever arguing, I have stepped down from belief and accepted the truth, I had to humble myself there is no opinion that I have only acceptance of the truth, and therefore if you argue with what I have witnessed then it is not me that you argue with it is the truth you cannot see or accept I have been defeated by the truth but those who argue are still struggling aginst the truth, that struggle ended a long time ago for me.The relationship that most Christians have with God is the relationship where the child is still attached to the mothers breast, that is the child has comfort from this beast but one day the child must grow into a man and eat solid food.I am not mistaken because there is no I in me left in that sense.


>
M. J. Young wrote...... If you claim that the phrasing "relationship with God through Jesus
> Christ" does not describe what you have, then I must conclude either
> that language is interfering with our communication or that you are not,
> as I understand the Bible to define it, a Christian. Since I choose not
> to be judgmental, I choose the former unless you tell me it is the latter.

Ozay wrote.......The relationship I have with god does come through Jesus Christ in the way Jesus meant it, but not in the way you have understood it.


>
M. J. Young wrote...... I also agree that most Christians and many pastors, teachers, and
> theologians do not understand the message they embrace, and do not act
> as that message suggests. I can only say that God is not finished with
> any of us, and that I once did not understand it as well as I now do. I
> could not have written that book ten years ago; I did not grasp the
> meaning of the gospel as fully as I do now. I cannot condemn others who
> do not now grasp it better than I then did; nor can I expect that they
> would spend the time trying to understand it that I have spent. I can
> offer what I understand to those who want to know.

Ozay wrote.......Yes indeed god has not finished because it is a permanent ongoing evolution in action, and some of the flowers will grow to maturity then some will only reach a stage without blooming and fall back to the Earth, but it will not be the end those who hear the word will bloom yet those who do not hear the word will still have another chance. So you say you once did not understand the Bible, and yet you must have 'THOUGHT@ you understood then, but now you see you did not, then you were growing, but I tell you you are still growing, if you do not see this then you will stop and your growth in god will be stunted, yet if you proceed in this growth you will look back and remember this discussion and what I am saying here because the truth once heard will never leave you if you have belief and disbelief it will be irrelevant to the truth and one day you will say again as you say now then I did not know what I know now, and that is what is going on here your ego is battling against the truth my ego has been defeated by the truth I do not identify to the truth I just accept it, and I am here merely as a representative that I have witnessed the truth, you hold the position in life as a teacher therefore it is my responsibility to expose you to the truth, it is your struggle not mine, mine has ended your is still present.


>
M. J. Young wrote...... You challenge:

Ozay wrote........I challenge nothing, I have accepted, it is you who challenge not I.


> *****
M. J. Young wrote.......are we for instance talking about scholars because you are one yourself?
> *****

Ozay wrote.......this question was given so that you may have food to ponder with and that way come to the truth .


>
M. J. Young wrote...... Actually, I think we are talking about scholars because you first used
> the word in writing to me, to suggest that scholarship was inherently
> oppositional to knowing God. I objected that the two are
> disconnected--one can be a great scholar and either a great believer or
> a poor believer or even an unbeliever. Paul was a great scholar, trained
> by Rabban Gamaliel I whose words are preserved in both the Talmud and
> the New Testament. He was also a great believer who truly understood the
> concepts of the gospel, a good message which explained that God was
> seeking to draw as many to Himself who would simply trust Him and come
> to Him. Peter was not a scholar, but studied as he was able, and in his
> writings he mentioned that Paul's writings were valuable for
> understanding the meaning of the message. Scholars can be believers;
> scholarship aids the understanding, but is irrelevant to the faith.

Ozay wrote.......I agree that one who finds god in the self can become an intellectual as I have become, but there are two types who may find god one who is not and intellectual as I was not this kind of person can find god yet never sound convincing that he has found god, up against a sholar the sholar can sound more convinving than him, then there is the intellectual who finds god, he will be convincing not matter what, then there is some one like me both intellectual and non intellectual that is I was classed as unintelligent before I found god, yet this was an advantage, because this simple mind could track out the meaning inside I was not blocked, yet the way of the intellectual will eventually point out to him that the intellect itself stands in the way, that is in the begining it will hunger for knowledge and then the intelligence will calculate that some thing is amiss this will be through comparison given by the intellect and the ego this then will eventually result in the recognition that intellect is standing in the way.
Yet again you pride yourself on identifying to belief in this sentence, again then I will ask you so that you do not forget to ponder this question WHICH IS THE GREATER TRUTH.........BELIEF OF TRUTH? OR KNOWING TRUTH AS DIRECT EXPERIENCE? Now an inteligent man will see there is some thing amis here and this will not leave you alone until you find the correct answer and the correct answer can only come from one source that is the source of Jesus that is within the self and that answer will ultimately end up being the same as the answer that has come through me to you and also the true interpretation of Jesus's answer.

>
M. J. Young wrote...... You attack me because I have studied the Bible for years, learned to
> read the New Testament in its original language, learned to understand
> how textual critics compare the many early copies and translations we
> have of it in order to assure us that we are looking at what was
> actually written, learned to pay attention to the meaning of the words
> believing that those who wrote them understood the most important truths
> in the universe. It is because I have come to understand the most
> important truths in the universe that I have come to understand,
> paradoxically, that one of them is you don't need to understand the most
> important truths in the universe. As theologian Karl Barth said, the
> most profound thing the Bible teaches is captured in the simple song,
> "Jesus loves me, this I know for the Bible tells me so." The rest is
> because of that, and understanding is useful, but understanding in
> itself neither inhibits nor encourages trust in God. It only tells us
> what trust in God means, why we do it, and how that expresses itself in
> our lives.

Ozay wrote.......Even before I read this sentence I am going to say that because you have built your house on the sand (BELIEF) anything you have to teach me is baseless and everything I have to say because I am in touch with the source is usful for your own spiritual growth, but I will keep up with you intellect as I do not let one of gods lambs go, not only this you have set yourself up as a shepherd and this is losing even more of gods children I am here to help not to passify your ego and the pride you hold in your intellectual knowledge of the bible, I show you the true way, you may not take it right now because your ego blocks you, but eventually even thick concrete if left unmaintained will be broken by nature of god a tree will suddenly take root and the concrete will begin to break down., .
I do not attack you, that YOU you speak of is the ego taking offecne at the truth I am portraying The ego becomes satisfied when it has become an expert, this image satisfies only the ego because it is that which thrives on compliment prestige and position, if this ego were not there then there can be no attack on you only an exchange of the truth. All you seem to do is talk about text scriptue where is the love of god emanating out of you?You quote authors what use...intellect.....Copying some one else is not knowing god in you that is understanding through mind it does not touch the heart it does not make you see anything other than belief in him don't believe in that etc etc all useless compared to the true experience.


>
M. J. Young wrote......So yes, I would say I am a scholar. I teach teachers.

Ozay wrote.......And what good is that the truth does not teach a scholar only books teach a scholar, now today the scholar has been replaced by the internet and any information you require can be found within a few minutes, but does tis mean that my computer can "KNOW GOD" as I do?


>
M. J. Young wrote...... You accuse me of arrogance when we are called to humility, but I deny
> the arrogance and say you have failed to understand Biblical humility. I
> have made no statement about myself that is not true, to the best of my
> knowledge. I have said only what I thought necessary to make you aware
> who I am--as Paul cited his credentials to the Philippians in response
> to their doubts as to whether someone else's version of the message
> might be more accurate than his. Humility is not thinking ourselves
> worthless. Jesus is our example of humility, and He never once thought
> or said that He was anything less than the Son of God, the most
> important human being ever to walk the earth. His humility was expressed
> in the fact that being as great as He was and knowing His own greatness,
> He devoted everything He had and was to the service of others, to the
> point of dying for us. Humility involves taking our own greatness,
> understanding it, and using it to make others greater. That was what
> Paul explained to Philemon, as I explain in my page
> http://www.mjyoung.net/bible/philem.htm on Philemon.

Ozay wrote.......Ego cannot but help being arrogant when it thinks that it "KNOW" what others do not know that is the problem, again I say try losing all of the prestige you have taken by holding such a position in life amongst the people you are with, lose it all and tell me will you be truly unmoved
and I tell you it will break you to pieces that is because you do not truly live by god but rather live by identity and pride in your position in people eyes, those Catholic priests who have been accused of peadophilia how do you think they FEEL? are they untouched because they "THINK" they know Christ or are the touched because they 'BELIEVE' christ?

>
M. J. Young wrote......You wrote, "Are sheep really oblivious that they are sheep...?"
>
> I did not say that the sheep were oblivious to the fact that they are
> sheep. I said that they were oblivious to the fact that they act like
> sheep. They ultimately cannot imagine acting otherwise.

ozay wrote.......it is only man who acts because it is only man who "THINKS" that there is acting a sheep knows that it must eat defecate and sleep in order to survive and what makes a difference from man to the sheep? a man "THINKS" about this and a sheep just gets on with it, but who knows for sure why even bring this into the discussion it is a point that no one can prove therefore just a waste of energy to conside, it is better to know god then you may come to know the sheep. You also use the word IMAGINE, this relates to belief, fantasy cartoons just about everything that can become false.


>
M. J. Young wrote......My wife brings home what her friends derisively call "strays". These are
> people she has met and gotten to know a bit who fall on hard times and
> need a place to live until they can get back on their feet. Some of them
> have robbed us or hurt us very badly over the years, but she still does
> it, and I fully support her. I recognize that she is acting like the
> parable's sheep because that is who and what she is. She could no more
> leave an acquaintance homeless and hungry than she could feed poison to
> her own children.

Ozay wrote.......Now let me tell you does she do this because the law of the bible demands it? Or would she have done this anyway without knowing any laws of the bible? You see one is just an act, and is not for real and the other is from direct pure essence of the heart, yet the mind can convince itself it is done out of love, but in truth it is done out of fear of retribution and fear of god, yet this is also a path because as you say these people cause you pain and suffering, it is not the act that is committed that will bring you close to god, noo, it is the suffering that will bring you to humility, if an act is not done from the heart then it is not charity there is some thing to gain back, when you have nothing and you have no people to tell that you have just commited this charity then it is done in true faith, do not let the right hand know what the left hand is doing, look at me see what I do I am a Christian everyone, yet a tramp who has nothing who gives to charity one penny gives more than you can dream of giving the tramp is much closer to god than you think because he suffers and this suffering purifys his soul.


>
M. J. Young wrote...... The rest of your discussion about sheep is making a critical error about
> parable interpretation, pushing the parable beyond its intention. In the
> parable, "sheep" is a metaphor for God's people. They care for the
> helpless and the homeless because that is what they do, not because it's
> what they're supposed to do. The "goats" don't do that not because they
> don't realize they should, but because it never occurs to them to do it.
> Sheep open themselves up to vulnerability, take the risks of pain,
> because we understand that no one can take anything that matters from
> us, even if they take our lives or all our earthly possessions, and
> because that is what the Shepherd did for us, to show us how it is done.

Ozay wrote.......You have no authority to say anything of my interpretation because you do not "KNOW" god as I do therefore by not knowing it is you who are in error of mistakenly judgeing that I am in error
If sheep is an interpretation of Gods people then the lamb also being another name for sheep is also gods people which is correct in context the lamb being the son of God. It is only the ego that feels vulnerability because it does not hold to truth truth is unmovable unchangeable so therefore cannot be moved or vulnerable, pain again is ego, ego is mind identity etc. You see I cannot go with you because you are so far off the mark, but still I hold wwith you and carry on correcting where you are wrong, again I will ask you "WHAT IS THE GREATER TRUTH....BELIEF OF TRUTH? OR KNOWING TRUTH?


>
M. J. Young wrote...... You wrote, "To teach the bible is good, but to interpretate the bible
> and put your own interpretation onto others if you have not become god
> realised is not good,..."

Ozay wrote....That is correct.


>
M. J. Young wrote...... There you go with that "God realized" again. If God tells me to teach, I
> will teach as well as I am able, and seek to become better at it.

Ozay wrote.......If you can become better at it then that means you have already shot yourself in the foot because it means you do not know the true answers the reason I say that is because you state you seek to become better, which means your truth will change over time (BELIEF) the truth I come to is permanent and can never change.


>
M. J. Young wrote......
You wrote, "...it is said quite clearly by Jesus to "KNOW THYSELF...."
> Actually, I believe it was Socrates who said that. If Jesus said it, it
> didn't make it into the New Testament. There are a few books which claim
> to record words and events of the life of Jesus not found in the New
> Testament, but none of them have any credibility, being evident
> forgeries from centuries later.

Ozay wrote.......What do you think about the dead sea scrolls? And what do you consider about what is written down in history about so much information being rejected as I mentioned before, some thing like 300 books of the bible were burned extracts were taken out this is all written into history books if that is the case, which I have no argument for or against then it means a lot of information is missing, though I do say what has been left is ample to help one find god realiseation though it is unfortunate that it is the most simplest thing for a simple mind yet in thw ritten word it becomes complex data after data over loading the mind with unecessary information about dates facts figures etc etc.


>
M. J. Young wrote...... On a side issue, you wrote, "I have no dictionary to interpretate those
> words,..."
>
> I apologize. I used ordinary theological terms that anyone who has taken
> his study of the Bible far enough to learn what others have discovered
> about it would know, but perhaps not if (as I suspect) their native
> tongue is not English, and not if they are bringing their own ideas to
> the scripture instead of opening themselves (the work of scholarship) to
> what so many others have already thought. I recommend the web site
> http://www.dictionary.com/ for any words with which you have difficulty,
> and if by chance I use a word that is not there (I admit that sometimes
> I think something is a word which is not) you can ask me for its meaning.

Ozay wrote.......The bible is like a bus, as I have said before it takes you to the destintion, but then one must get off or you miss the stpping point, I have found god in myself and therefore this being the truth why do U need to read the bible what purpose? I have the whole truth written into myself and I know Jesus in the way he meant it. I was Born in England, and as I have said I am a simple person and use communication of every day language which everyone in my life and likely your life uses, if that language is being used regularly in your life then I would suggest it is a small sellect group of people, often simple words are the most potent, and words used that one may know few others understand can be conceieved as being motivated rather by pride and arrogance, but of course it is not for me to say this is so with you it is you who needs to look into why you make this point of education, some form of measuring going I would guess, them and us?


> M. J. Young wrote...... It is not pride to believe something about yourself that is true. You
> accuse me of pride "in identifying what one knows above everyone else",
> and yet you are doing the same thing, asserting that your experience
> gives you knowledge that others, I included, lack. It may be true that
> you have such knowledge, but you cannot claim to have that knowledge
> which makes your understanding superior to that of others and at the
> same time say that others who claim to have superior knowledge which
> disagrees with yours are arrogant or prideful. You fail to see your own
> arrogance in assuming that you are write. I do not assume that I am
> right. I assume that Paul and Peter and James and John and Matthew and
> Mark and Luke and Jude are right, and that I am only right to the degree
> that I understand them correctly--a degree which improves through my
> studies, while at the same time those studies reveal the errors I have
> held to this point. I do not lack experience, but neither do I trust
> that my experience will teach me what is contrary to what Jesus' closest
> friends learned from Him directly.

Ozay wrote.......Truth will always be superior to identifying with belief, that cannot be denied, and it was by accepting this that I came to that truth, this entails being born again, to be born again some thing has to die, and the death is the ego and its identifying to belief, must happen for this to be understood, many Christians say they are born again but when you observe the behaviour they are still stuck in identifying, therefore they cannot have been born to the truth ego MUST die.


>
M. J. Young wrote...... You asked, "It would be good to talk about the holy trinity and the
> meaning of the body and blood of Christ tell me how you understand this?"
> > I'm not understanding quite what it is you want to know. Perhaps you
> could either ask a clearer and more specific question, or else explain
> to me what it is you believe so I can respond to how it compares with my
> understanding.


Ozay wrote.......To drink the blood and to eat his flesh, has the power to make you devine only if it is FELT in the correct way, NOTE I say FELT, because it is here that my distinction is being made with the intellectual understanding, which is only seen in the mind imagination and therefore cannot produce the desired effects, and if these effects are produced which they may well do then because the intellect takes over the effect is quickly lost.

>
M. J. Young wrote......You wrote:
> *****
> But you may have it all wrong about the way you understand the new age
> to come, is it not just a belief without "KNOWING"?
> *****
>
M. J. Young wrote...... I might be wrong about all kinds of things. However, Hebrews 11:1

Ozay wrote......If you can see you MIGHT be wrong or you MIGHT be right what is it that keeps you teaching one who KNOWS?



tells
M. J. Young wrote...... us that faith is the assurance of things hoped and the conviction of
> things not seen--in other words, it is how we know what we cannot
> directly observe. I know that Jesus awakened from death in part because
> I trust the eyewitness reports that He did so. I also trust that the
> person I have met claiming to be Him is that same person, for similar
> reasons. Most of what we think we know we only know by faith--that is,
> we trusted the people who told us, and so we believe that what they said
> was true. For most of us, all our history, most of our science, and a
> lot more of our knowledge is held by such faith, and not by empirical
> knowledge.

Ozay wrote.......You only need to know faith and the rest does not need to be entertained. You say you know because eye witness acounts that is not knowing that is believing what has been written down, I know that this is possible because there are many things I have experienced and witenessed in myself your belief is weak up to "KNOWING" and further there is countless examples of history being changed because it does not suit the culture it belongs to, ie two countries speak about the same event yet both differ because they wish to identify to being the superior race etc.


>
M. J. Young wrote......That does not mean I do not "know" what I "believe". Do I know that
> George Washington was President of the United States? No, but I trust
> the teachers who have taught me this as history. Do I know that Barrack
> Obama is now President of the United States? No, but I trust the media
> that tells me so. Do I know that you are not some "Troll" trying to
> waste my time with pointless arguments? No, but I give you the benefit
> of the doubt and trust that you have my well-being in view, even as I
> believe you are misguided in many of your beliefs. Do I know that I am
> being transformed from this present evil age into the age which is to
> come? As well as I know anything else, I know that. It is part of my
> experience. It is also what the Bible describes. Thus my experience and
> the teachings of the Bible confirm each other; and my scholarship
> assures me that I am probably not reading into the Bible what I want to
> find there or believe it ought to say, but recognizing what it actually
> does say and comparing my experience to it.


Ozay wrote.......But what Jesus spoke of I can "KNOW" and therefore do not need to have a weak belief that keeps changeing this is solid belief I will tell you is not, you are so busy telling that you cannot hear what is being said and the importance of it, though they listen they do not hear, though they look they do not see, what gives cause to this manifestation, what stops the seeing and the hearing? Again I tell you it is the intellect the mind has to anylise your belief is inferior, yet if you only have a small amount of faith that WILL carry you through.


>
M. J. Young wrote......Again, scholarship has value. It does not create relationship, but it
> goes a long distance in explaining it.

Ozay wrote.......then one must get off and walk and experience what is said, again you protect this so strongly you cannot let it go, like a child who has been given a teet to suck after it has come off the breasts and refuses to stop sucking it.

>
M. J. Young wrote...... You wrote:
> *****
> Intellectually your words are absolutely spot on correct, but I know
> there is not experience of this, because you did not identify Jesus,
> love God, god in the correct context that it would have been in if you
> were god realised, unfortunately this is the state of affairs with much
> of Christianity today.
> *****
M. J. Young wrote......You do not know how arrogant you sound! You are saying that you know as
> a fact that no one else has experienced a real relationship with God
> because we are not like you. But the ear must be different from the eye,
> the hand from the foot, the liver from the kidney, or the body will not
> work. God deals with us as individuals, each of us in the strengths and
> weaknesses of ourselves, and He makes us individuals, each of us serving
> a unique place in the society that is His people. He needs some
> scholars, some mystics, some caregivers, some accountants and financiers
> and businessmen, and so much more. He does not treat us all the same; He
> calls us all to come to Him through Jesus, and to become the distinct
> individuals we were created to be, in relationship with Him and each other.
>

Ozay wrote......Oh yes I know what I say interpretated through an egoistical mind will think this is arrogance, but there is also the other interpretation what I say is simply the truth and I have no attachment to how it makes me appear, I know what I am, and I have been given the truth, you can take this offering or not, but this is not my struggle it is yours, I am free from such labelling SIMPLY TRUTH. I do not say I "THINK" no one else has experienced god, but most people who speak of god make flaws by their interpretations, I have heard words of saints and many saints have come to the truth because their words I recognise they are words directly communicating the heart, but times have changed admittedly and the land is over run with those who wish to have identity over truth therefore those who reach god today who wish to put forwards the truth will have to be like warriors with that truth for in order for it to be portrayed the ego has to be conquered that is how it is today, there is no innocence that has been lost in humanity because of the many liars who have come and preached their beliefs as truth.


M. J. Young wrote...... So I did not describe my experience in the words you would have used,
> and on that basis you decree that I do not know God as you know Him.
> Have you read the works of others over the centuries who have known God
> through Jesus Christ--Brother Lawrence, Martin Luther, John Calvin,
> Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, or any of the thousands who have written
> about their relationship with God through Jesus Christ? Did you notice
> that their modes of expression are different from your own, and from
> mine, and from so many others? Or are you the only person who has truly
> connected with God since Jesus left the earth?

Ozay wrote.......I do not read books anymore, the danger of reading books is that it manifests even further the intellect it activates the mind and the mind has a powerful imagination therefore the danger of this form of intense reading is that one becomes totally knowledged up with all the ideas and then the ego convinces itself that it has acquired all these qualities, only thing is it is the imagination it has changed but not the beig it has not purified the mind so that the essence of the being of God can shine through, it works on the same principle as hypnosis only this is a self hypnosis the effect is an illusionary one, when I meet a true brother of Christ he will know me as I will know him, we will not even use that name Christ but we will experience the expression of god CHRIST. this is all without mental concept involved.


>
M. J. Young wrote...... You wrote, "Yes you are correct some one has to explain it correctly as
> I am to you,..." I remember a friend in college who attended a meeting
> of the Jehovah's Witnesses. They discovered that they had someone in
> their midst who was an Evangelical Christian, and immediately began
> trying to persuade him of his error. He held his own (we were, after
> all, Bible students, quite well informed about scripture). He says that
> at one point one elderly lady suddenly burst out in frustration, saying,
> "I use to be confused like you."

Ozay wrote.......These are all mind concepts that is why this discussion is dual, in god there is no dual, no argument just a recognition, dual can only happen when there is an over load of information and one thing contradicts the other, many things n the Bible for instance cannot make sense where modern day science is concerned that is because there is mind, god will only happen when mind stops so you see god cannot happen here with your argument or my argument, or the little old lady who became frustrated you may think she was ahero because she took you side, but in god there are no sides to take therefore this makes your story void, of good and siding with the devil.


>
M. J. Young wrote...... The fact that you believe yourself to be correct does not make you
> correct, just as the fact that I believe myself to be correct does not
> make me correct. I assert that I am correct based on years of study of
> the Bible and an experience that tracks with it. You assert your own
> experience as the basis of your claim to correctness, but I cannot test
> your experience nor know it to be genuine. I can only measure your
> message against the objective, the truth published in scripture. You
> cannot expect me, nor anyone else, to accept what you say on your own
> authority. You must have an objective authority to support your
> assertions, or you are no better than David Khoresh (self-proclaimed
> prophet whose Waco, Texas group practiced child abuse and other crimes)
> or Jim Jones (earlier self-proclaimed prophet who led his followers to
> mass suicide in Guyana). Without an objective authority, your claims
> about the truth have no more weight than personal opinions.

Ozay wrote.......I do not 'BELIEVE' myself still you do not hear though I keep saying this, I know myself there is where you have the problem grasping the meaning and KNOWING has nothing to do with belief, all my beliefs I had to lose when I died to that self that untre self which held all those beliefs. I assert that you are not correct the truth is correct you have to die to self in order to know that as truth all the time you argue means you will waste energy and not get anywhere in spiritual evolution. You have read so much and know so much intellectual knowledge you have hypnotised ypourself via the imagination and it is a very powerful thing, but this is ego.
You can test my experience by following the correct way that Jesus taught, as I have done before you.You bring up such people as David khoresh and his like this is also proof that your ego runs your life can you not see this is what the English did to the black and the Nazis along with some Christian groups did to the Jews...It is called dehumaniseing that way the ego escapes the penalty of not being able to empower itself, I have no wish for anyone to follow me, only that I may serve just as I am, there are no followers here no students who wish to sit in my classes because I have no classes, I am here only to help in the cause to break down the evil of the ego identifying and dividing and to help people understand the truth Jesus taught this is no subtraction in it is an addition to Jesus because so much has been lost yes he left a great thing but the intellectuals are turning it around, and to use such a defence mechanism as to dehumanise by comparing up to such a person as this david whoever is not what Christ has taught you this is what your ego identifying has taught you.


>
M. J. Young wrote...... Now, perhaps if you start performing miracles you might be able to
> assert that they arise because God wants people to believe you; but Paul
> did warn us not to accept any other message than the one he taught no
> matter who brought it, and I'm going to stick with him.

Ozay wrote.......If I told you that miracles have happened around me, at least that is how you would interpretate them, for me these are natural occurences because I have purified the nature of mind, though when I am in this ego in such a debate it becomes contaminated, yet I will walk away from this and know how to purify again, you will walk away and? The reason you would not "BELIEVE" that miracles have happened around me is because you live in ego and belief therefore you have know way of knowing this truth I know, it is a disbelieving generation. Not even Jesus was convincing in his home town, but now that home town is the world, there are those who hear and there are those who do not know how to listen because they speak too much this is ego play.


>
M. J. Young wrote...... I have undoubtedly skipped some parts of your letter you may have
> thought important. This was in part because I knew my answer would be
> long. (I apologize that it is so lengthy.) It is also because I thought
> some points not worth comment or argument, or not as worthy of comment
> as those I did cover. I have been writing this for much more time than I
> really could spare from my workday, but consider the potential benefit
> to you worth that time.
>

Ozay wrote.......No this is incorrect, your ego has been stimulated into action because it has to keep its place, this identity will lose its energy in other words you will lose self esteem, this is what keeps you hooked like a heroin addict though a heroin addict is better disposed than some one who is hooked on identity the heroin addict knows he is a poor useless addict but those who are addict to the identity do not know they are addicts to the identity and strange to the truth this means there is more chance for the heroin addict than there is for the minister of God.


M. J. Young wrote......I hope it helps.


Ozay wrote........I truly hope this helps you to ponder the meaning of what you are doing and where you are not doing.


I will conjure up my love for you even though there are so so so so many words that are in our heads, 1.30pm uk time I meditate not long for that I will clean up.
>
> --M. J. Young