I can assure you that I will give your feedback the weight that it deserves.

Nope you'll ignore it. Just as you ignore anything that doesn't proceed from you child mind.

How about a couple of paragraphs framed around the relevance of the film Inception (which I for one am far more familiar than Thomas' gospel!).

Failing this, a final option: lets imagine for the sake of argument that the problem of my failing to understand this message was really one with the messenger. To what online resources that 'describe the same process' could you direct someone like me?

Refer to what I have posted in this thread about Adam + Eve in the Garden:
Cobb = Adam
Mal = Eve
The life they built together in the counterfeit reality = Eve’s counterfeit paradise

Also, refer back to what I posted about Cain and Abel:
Cobb = Cain
Cobb’s children = Kingdom of Heaven / the ideal
Cobb cuts himself off from the Holy Spirit and therefore is cut off / can’t see his children and becomes a “restless wanderer”. It is not until he repents and grieves that he is able to reconnect to the Holy Spirit (final limbo scene) and get unstuck.

The most we can hold onto are intimations and foggy recognitions of patterns based on shared experience. Otherwise, there would be no Hero’s Journey and no faith moves. When I talk about this stuff landing, I am not expecting to be able to communicate more than that.

To answer your question directly, we are still at the beginning of the beginning with this stuff, so you are not going to find other online resources that describe the process better than I have here. Story, ritual, and art always lead the way before conscious understanding, so you can find the patterns everywhere in those domains if you are capable of seeing them.

… that started 15 years ago.

I'm leaving this to Beau. Good luck, brother.

Listen, anyone who elevates rationality is a coward and a liar. The innocent man is to be found guilty and sent to hell. The alternative is enslavement and death. The coward denies the innocent man his opportunity for liberation in hell.

For this, the coward calls himself good. He may hide this repulsive self-aggrandizement, but he allows himself to be covered by it nonetheless. How can someone who is already good cultivate a burning desire for the good? How can someone who doesn’t have a burning desire for the good do the highest good?

Only the strong man is worthy of standing in the spot that Job stood, innocent and shamed by God. Only the strong man, capable of betrayal, as Job betrayed himself, is worthy enough to do this. Not the good man.

The coward lies to the innocent man about rationality. He makes false promises of liberation and then doubles down. Past failure doesn’t diminish rationality, it simply means more rationality is needed - says the coward. Pathetic. It isn’t compassion for the innocent man motivating the lie. It is the refusal to grow up and become a man who does what is good like Job.

The wise man apportions his belief to the word salad.

Sisyphus vs The Strong Man

In Camus’ Myth, Sisyphus is condemned by the gods to the mundane, meaningless task of repeatedly pushing a boulder up a hill, only to have it roll all the way back down. Throughout the struggle, Sisyphus is defiant of despair, but he accepts the hopelessness and absurdity of his existence. Camus says that we should imagine Sisyphus happy. He wants us to see Sisyphus as heroic, admirable, and worthy of imitation.

The strong man finds himself in the same place as Sisyphus. However, he does not see Sisyphus as worthy of imitation. When the strong man pushes the boulder up the hill, he does so with full hope that completing the task will fundamentally change his situation for the better. He expects transformation through a steadfast belief in, even a sense of entitlement to, the Kingdom of Heaven.

When the boulder rolls back down the hill and nothing has changed, the strong man feels the devastation and heartbreak of rejection. He sees the truth in the hopeless absurdity that Sisyphus has fully accepted. Still, where Sisyphus gets on with the task, the strong man stands his ground. He defiantly seeks reconciliation with the God who has condemned and rejected him. He waits until he recovers hope and meaning within the hopelessness and meaninglessness.

The strong man sees right through Sisyphus. He realizes that Sisyphus doesn’t resign himself to the Absurd because it’s the highest truth. Rather, Sisyphus is protecting himself from the pain of heartbreak and rejection required to walk the narrow path of truth and hope. As a result, Sisyphus condemns himself to his own imprisonment.

Well the problem of Sisyphus is that he can't ever escape his task.

Sisyphus is honest about where he is, that he has been given a task by the gods that he has yet to complete. And he has the proper wisdom and an appropriate fear to not shirk his responsibility. However, unlike the strong man, when Sisyphus loses hope of ever completing the task, he doesn’t dig into himself to uncover a new hope.

The strong man will stand next to the boulder in stillness, enduring insults from the gods and from Sisyphus for falling behind in the task compared to Sisyphus. He won’t act until he has full hope and belief that his next round of pushing the boulder will move him closer to fulfillment. Unlike Sisyphus, the strong man doesn’t lose sight of the real task which is hidden, given to him by the real God who is hidden.

The strong man, who is last, will be first. Sisyphus, who is first, will be last.

Seems bad to pick the example of Sisyphus where this can never happen.

Stories are tools. They are in service to man, not the other way around. If I make a better tool, then it would be foolish of me to agree that this “seems bad”.

Alternatively, stories are like seeds. The mustard seed is the smallest but…

I get retelling a story for your own ends but this strikes me a lot like saying "The smart man called his friend to bring a forklift". Sisyphus doesn't have a forklift truck. He's doomed to eternal monotonous failure for his attempts to evade the rule of the Gods, punished for his hubris, if we give him other options it isn't really Sodyphus any more.

The Kingdom of Heaven is like a roaring lion standing in front of a child. The lion, as prince and ruler of the world, commands that no one else be placed above him. Then, the child eats the lion and drinks his blood, and the lion is called lucky.

The Kingdom of Heaven is like a child being called unworthy and a bastard by the entire world. Then, the child eats the world.

The Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who hates his life. The man transforms into a lion and later hates himself. Then the man transforms into a child and eats himself.

The Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who finds himself stuck. The man calls himself a sheep in front of the judge and later cannot hear the call of the shepherd. Then, the man calls himself a goat in front of the judge, hears the call of the shepherd, and is guided to the slaughterhouse.

What in the name of Ned are you babbling about?

https://youtu.be/409Pjtq7jzY

Thanks for the link, but it wasn't helpful at all to me to figure out what you're communicating.

Anyway, enjoy your blogging!

Serious question: Does anybody have a clue what craig1120 is talking about?

Only the lurker, who is still and quiet, can hear me.

Only the people who love the Father in Heaven with their entire heart, mind, and soul.

No. I went through this in another thread. I don't think he wants to be understood.

Since you are not even attempting to make what you are talking about even remotely understandable to us simple folk, I will not comment further on your blog.

+1

Serious answer: I understand but I can not explain why I understand.

Serious Response: I understand what you're saying, Bobby, but I cannot explain why I understand what you're saying.