Who What When Where Why?

God said:

Nothing can contain the joy I feel. My joy overflows. Joy meets itself whenever My eyes and My thoughts and My love fall on you, My One Child, My One Self. To say that you are deep in My heart doesn’t say enough, for you are My very heart.
 
To say that We, you and I, are intertwined does not say enough. There is really no weaving of us. I AM, and that tells the story. It is not totally accurate to say I AM you or to say You are I, even though those are true so far as they go. There is One, and there is no distinguishing you from Me nor distancing Myself from you, yet, of course, We do contrive to do that. We do that all the time, and there is that rascal Time getting in Our way, messing up all Our discourses. Because of fictitious time, what We say incurs this or that, now or then, etc.
 
The Truth is that there never was a time when there ever was anything but I and I AM. There never was a time when you were even a tiny inch outside. The reducing of All That Is into sections of time, contracting, contrasting Truth and time, making one dependent upon the other when there is truly no need brings up the question When and for what duration, how long or how short. The same goes for the sense of space that consumes you and its question of where. When and Where also bring up sequence and precedent, before or after. You do begin to see that time and space are two ends of the same stick. Even time and space are not separate any more than We are or ever were or ever will be.
 
Because of time and space, ins and outs rise up, and complication sets in. Complications are not real. Complications are a set-up.
 
Perhaps ego is a child of time and space, a construct of time and space. Without time and space, how could ego, false as it is, exist, or appear to exist? Time and space gave birth to a clown, a tiny clown that blows itself up to be big. Without the concepts of time and space, where would selfishness come from? Where would all this identity and you and me and mine and yours come from? There is only One of Us.
 
Only, in the world of time and space, all this ownership creeps in. The idea of space yields to the idea of not enough room in the inn for all. From space comes the idea of displacement. I could go on and on, and I often do. From time and space come the ideas of protection and defense, and protection and defense arise from ownership which is a false fact. Regardless of deeds and liens and contracts in the world, there is no ownership. There is assumed ownership, understood ownership, yet ownership does not have a leg to stand in.
 
Time and space say differently. They are Jokers in a deck of cards.
 
The reality of the world is one thing. Reality is another. Much can be seen in hearts in the world, yet the only real is love. All these other manifestations are pure malarkey. They are the Emperor’s clothes washed and hung out to dry. They can even be proven in the physical world, yet how far in space or time does that take us? Nowhere.

Read Comments

Hi Gloria, I hope you read

Hi Gloria, I hope you read this

I'm from God's home

I've been reading your messages for a while

but Not/Today really is Eternal for me to say.... you are my ONLY amazing connection to my best buddie God =), my Father God, our Father

heaven & God are known by many names

but anyway

I owe you a great big hug right now, in spirit, multidimensionally and the moment I consciously meet you in God's home =)

a long big hug of my love to your love
which isn't separate ;D =)

Oh, yes, dear Jeffrey, I am

Oh, yes, dear Jeffrey, I am a reader! I wouldn't miss it.

Think of it -- we are all from the same place!

And it's all love from God to God. Amazing, isn't it?

What a way to start the day!

ins and outs rise up

Most beautiful. Who am I to say that. I don't know, I just have to say it: This is the most beautiful Heavenletter I have read so far. Concise and comprehensive, in fact, exhaustive, utterly true beyond the shadow of a doubt. Oneness made palpable. Ah, oneness.

We may all agree there is no true ownership in the final analysis, but every single one of us will insist on some legal ownership or other, thinking it's all right, thinking our worldly affairs need legal ownership or "mere anarchy is loosed upon the world". Well, if this Heavenletter is right, that point of view can only be mistaken. To have spaces where this one can go but not that one, where this can be said but not that, in short, where what I deem appropriate may exist and what I deem inappropriate may not – how impressively wrong. Yet it seems so obvious. Ownership and the dos and don'ts it brings, no exception, are a denial of love, however much they try to present themselves as reasonable or even compassionate and in the best interest of all concerned. I now realize I have been waiting for a Heavenletter stating it as clearly as this.

Is God a communist? Why, he speaks about love and about love not suffering exceptions. How strange we think we can afford exceptions, even systematically misnaming them. I faintly remember older Heavenletters where it was said that certain rules can have certain benefits. I guess that was when God knew we were not ready for love, for oneness, yet. He seems to think we are ready now.

I found myself immediately reading this Heavenletter a second time and then another two times. I guess I will go on reading it until its message sinks in completely.

Well, it probably does not even sink in but is already there deep within. How else could one love these words before even fully grasping them:

The reality of the world is one thing. Reality is another. Much can be seen in hearts in the world, yet the only real is love. All these other manifestations are pure malarkey. They are the Emperor’s clothes washed and hung out to dry. They can even be proven in the physical world, yet how far in space or time does that take us? Nowhere.

Are we not all Guests on

Are we not all Guests on Earth, dear friend?.

Your response is sure inspiring me to read this Heavenletter a few more times!

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I wish time allowed me to respond to everything you say so well, but, quickly, two things I've just gotta say:

Regarding this, 3rd: paragraph:

I faintly remember older Heavenletters where it was said that certain rules can have certain benefits. I guess that was when God knew we were not ready for love, for oneness, yet. He seems to think we are ready now.

From my understanding, God still says this. He says there is good in everything. But, of course, God has a vaster vision.

You might like to read this blog:

Next: There is no "they." It's likely we all are acquainted with our ego's possessiveness!

Years ago I worked on a play in which Krishna says: "There is no Mine and thine in Brindiban."

God bless you!

there is good in everything

Yes that's true, I know God is saying it quite often. But it's obviously not the whole picture, or why would he also say things like this:

The world covers up love. The world is even sometimes embarrassed by love, as though love could be a fool’s errand. Rules are made to keep out love. In the world, love is a wiggly-waggly line with breaks in it. The world is proud of the separation of love and state. The world does a cover-up. The world tries to say that love is not legalized, that love is bootleg or some kind of contraband, that love belongs in one place and not another, that the shades must be pulled down on love, that love is like the crazy aunt who has to be watched and not let out except under guard.

http://heavenletters.org/believe-in-love.html

This is quite strong, is it not? Served up just a few weeks ago. There must be some reality to this and I'm sure it is not far away, not somewhere else. It is right where we are. I think God wants us to take his words personally, not as information or philosophy.

And coming back to the Heavenletter at hand, what I hear it say is to love and not think about any whys and wherefores why-nots at all. To be serious about ending time and space and this clownery for something truly fun.

Guest, one of many, thank

Guest, one of many, thank you for posting.

My understand is that both are true! All of us are love, and, yet, in the world, we sometimes run away from love. There isn't an either/or.There are many angles of the diamond that God comes from. In one Heavenletter, God tells us to say Yes. Just say Yes. In another He tells us to learn to say No.

This is the relative temporary world.

In Truth, in the foundation of the temporary world we live in, in the very foundation of ourselves, there is absolute Love and Oneness. In the world, boy, don't we have diversity!

You are sure right when you express that God wants us to have fun. He doesn't want us to take everything so seriously as we tend to do. Both can live together!

Blessings!

in the world

Again, dear Gloria, I fully agree. Perhaps we can safely say that in the end God wants us to lose ourselves in him, in love, and since he knows that sometimes we love a little or a lot and sometimes we prefer not to, he provides the seeming dichotomy of the absolute and the relative – just to save us from too much pressure. There are many Heavenletters that quite clearly deny the true existence of such a dichotomy, and yet God provides this easy way out in case we think we need one. That's how far his compassion goes. In that sense, there is nothing wrong with not wanting to love or not now or not this one. Wer are perfectly free to cop out indefinitely, to relativize anything uncomfortable out of the picture if that is what we want.

Put perhaps it is not advisable to speak about other Heavenletters too much when discussing a certain one. It's all right to do that, of course, but let's not be so quick, let us allow this one to work on us a little, why not? Perhaps I will find out that I still do not understand oneness or "no time, no space", or perhaps I vaguely sense that I don't really want to understand, that for the time being I feel more at home in duality and relativity. Wouldn't that be valuable information?

I read this most beautiful Heavenletter another two times this morning and found it deeply nourishing again, whether I truly understand it or not.

I love it! What great points

I love it! What great points you make!

We don't understand, and yet, on some level, we do!

A thousand blessings, Guest!

Reality is another

Dear Guest, I see you are trying to understand Oneness in your reply to Gloria.
At its very fundamental level, as I see it as best I can,Oneness is equated with Equality to everything. In other words it is of the mind. And the mind likes to separate things for mere understanding, it's the only way it knows how to do work. In my opinion it is on the right track. The mind cannot feel, so it comes sup with a scenario to make us gain an understanding of this emotion.

ONENESS is much higher and totally different from this understanding. Oneness IS! Oneness is more like a cloud of energy where all the ingredients of the molecular structure are atomic if you get my drift. Oneness is intelligence in pure form!

Everything that we see is made up of atoms. The Human body and its cells are made up this way and that's why it follows the Laws of the Higher Planes and breaks down to dust.

Anyway Our father will explain more of this when we are ready for this understanding.
victor