Who did Jesus come down hardest on? The pharisees, saducees, experts in the law--those who thought they could achieve acceptance of God through works, and having achieved this, felt the liberty to avoid/withhold love and compassion for others. To them, it had become a game of ''kick as many people down as you can, heaven has limited occupancy, and the more of 'them' I can 'out-holy,' the better MY chances are of getting in.'' As well as ''following rules is what God wants, He is demanding, strict, judging, and merciless. I esteem this image as God, and so emulate it, myself, since I'm an expression of God, and this is what I understand and perceive God to be.''
How many times have we heard/read ''God is love?'' No, really, God is love. Were they just speaking in metaphors? ''A new command I give to you'' Jesus said, for the benefit of those who regarded the fulfillment of commandments as the only way to attain ''righteousness'' ''a new command I give to you: that you love one another; that as I have loved you, you also may love one another.'' and ''Love is the fulfillment of the law.''
Jesus said ''he who would save his life will lose it, but he who loses his life, for my sake, will find it.'' and ''It would be easier for a camel to enter through a needle eye than for a rich man to enter into heaven.'' It's not only about wealth. He was talking about those who put something-anything of such great importance that it overshadowed the greatest two commandments. These experts in the law were fighting tooth-and-nail to try to get into heaven with observance of the law to the letter; building riches up in heaven. They were still ''rich men,'' but their currency was a sense of pride, self-sufficiency, and self-righteousness. Even if there was no monetary ''wealth'' involved, it was still a rat race.
Doing good deeds (or even believing in Jesus as the son of God, for that matter), just to try to avoid hell, doesn't make me good or moral in any way. It means I'm self-seeking and afraid of hell. It means I'm striving to build up securities to ensure my own survival. It means I'm still trying to become rich. ''I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father, but by me.'' At that instant, look at Jesus' life. What does he do? He has NOTHING to do with building up any riches. Giving--all he did was give. At all times, he was always giving. Love, the chief ''commandment,'' is not love until it is given.
That is the ''way.'' That is the truth of who we are, since we are expressions of this divine love. That is how to fully embody and exemplify the life manifested by the divine love in the physical realm as ''us,'' because it is the nature of the author of such life.
Hate is nothing more than the chosen cultivation of the void of love. The feelings that hatred bring are the frustrations we feel when our true nature, as expressions of divine love, is denied expression by our mislead logic. Thank God for frustrations, or we might never have any ''wake up call'' to the notion that something's amiss. You've heard the saying ''God-shaped hole,'' maybe even heard the song? It points to the fact that we, as expressions of the divine, have a nature intrinsic to the divine from which we have been expressed. Greed, fear, hatred, all these go hand-in-hand with many others. They never satisfy because that is not what/who we truly are.
All the commandments see their fulfillment in love. Fulfilling ''the laws'' devoid of love only ''kills'' us, because it is ''discipline,'' forced on us from outside, rather than the discipline of our own true nature of love, being expressed from the inside.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
God isn't Good, Hate is a Logical Misconception
Good needs bad to define it. If God is good, then he can't exist without ''bad.'' If God is synonymous with ''good,'' then he needs the struggle between good and evil in order to exist. God simply ''is.'' God can be described as the principle which has no opposite. Living things are expressions of God in the physical realm.
1.) ''God is love,''
2.) Hate is the void of love.
If God is love, and God simply ''is,'' then that which is the void of love is the void of what is.
If God is omnipresent--fully present everywhere, then the ''void of God'' is an impossibility.
Hate isn't so accurately described as ''a void,'' as it is ''a logical misconception,'' It is regarded as something, when really, it doesn't exist, except in the mind. Hate's existence is contrived through logical means based on false premises.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Pervasive Religious Equality
I propose that the fundamental principle of agnosticism is a healthy way to approach religion.
No religion is correct; it's just not something religions can be. If a religion could be proven, it would be called knowledge, since faith has no room to work in the absence of doubt. Religions are just tools to help us understand the true nature of reality. People were not made to serve religion; religion was made to serve people. Exclusive devotion to religions can be a very dangerous thing because they're built on faith, not solid facts. No religion ought to be praised and exalted above the rest, as though it is more of a religion than any others--as if its preservation is more important than the founding doctrines thereof. Religions, themselves, cannot be proven, and their interpretations are not always in accord with the religion itself.
Different religions are like shards of a broken mirror, and by looking into each of them, they all point to the same thing. No two shards will look quite the same; there are as many versions of religion as there are people.
Differences in religion are not very important to me, but God, on the other hand, is very important to me.
I used to worry about others' versions of God, whether or not they were ''the true God.'' By the former reasoning, any deviation, no matter how slight, is still a deviation and therefore tragically blasphemous. I would wonder, ''how do I know they're worshiping the same God I worship?'' Well, what that question really asks is ''How do I know they're worshiping the same perception of God that I have?''
But encountering God is a matter of faith--that is, God cannot be known. If God could be known, then it would not be a matter of faith, but of evidence and proof. As soon as I try to perceive/understand/qualify God, who cannot be known, I have put God into a box that no one else can quite mimic. No one's perception of God is quite the same, so no one's version of God is quite the same, so there are as many versions of God as there are souls. I can't perceive God quite the same way as anyone else does.
God cannot be known. It's a matter of faith, and faith has no room to operate in the absence of doubt. God can only be loved. It's not the religion or the practise, or even the name of God that makes any bit of difference. It's the love for God.
Worrying about others' versions of God, then, is not my business. When I ask God to bless someone, is it my responsibility to ensure that God does His part of the job? Doesn't God deal with a person's heart? The most, best, and only truly effective means of helping someone encounter God is to love them.
Love God, love each other.
No religion is correct; it's just not something religions can be. If a religion could be proven, it would be called knowledge, since faith has no room to work in the absence of doubt. Religions are just tools to help us understand the true nature of reality. People were not made to serve religion; religion was made to serve people. Exclusive devotion to religions can be a very dangerous thing because they're built on faith, not solid facts. No religion ought to be praised and exalted above the rest, as though it is more of a religion than any others--as if its preservation is more important than the founding doctrines thereof. Religions, themselves, cannot be proven, and their interpretations are not always in accord with the religion itself.
Different religions are like shards of a broken mirror, and by looking into each of them, they all point to the same thing. No two shards will look quite the same; there are as many versions of religion as there are people.
Differences in religion are not very important to me, but God, on the other hand, is very important to me.
I used to worry about others' versions of God, whether or not they were ''the true God.'' By the former reasoning, any deviation, no matter how slight, is still a deviation and therefore tragically blasphemous. I would wonder, ''how do I know they're worshiping the same God I worship?'' Well, what that question really asks is ''How do I know they're worshiping the same perception of God that I have?''
But encountering God is a matter of faith--that is, God cannot be known. If God could be known, then it would not be a matter of faith, but of evidence and proof. As soon as I try to perceive/understand/qualify God, who cannot be known, I have put God into a box that no one else can quite mimic. No one's perception of God is quite the same, so no one's version of God is quite the same, so there are as many versions of God as there are souls. I can't perceive God quite the same way as anyone else does.
God cannot be known. It's a matter of faith, and faith has no room to operate in the absence of doubt. God can only be loved. It's not the religion or the practise, or even the name of God that makes any bit of difference. It's the love for God.
Worrying about others' versions of God, then, is not my business. When I ask God to bless someone, is it my responsibility to ensure that God does His part of the job? Doesn't God deal with a person's heart? The most, best, and only truly effective means of helping someone encounter God is to love them.
Love God, love each other.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Bits and Pieces
How I feel is never as important as how I choose to feel.
Belief can't be ''tested,'' only trusted, because belief is not the same as knowledge.
Maybe depression is just "the universe's" way of saying ''you are very much loved, appreciated, and important in my eyes, but you don't yet fully understand how pervasively or profoundly this is true." And maybe depression is like a gift from a coconut tree that must first be cracked open; rather than just toting it around, resigning one's self to it as an extra weight. Not with anger or frustration, but with a nonetheless vigorous attitude of action, '''cause we're never gonna survive unless we get a little crazy.''
The specific type of religion doesn't have as much of an effect on you as the way you approach the religion.
The chains of my own mental slavery are nothing more than my own white-knuckle grip on the situation. Love is the only thing that can bring about the cessation of such conflicts because it is, itself the cessation of conflicts—love simply ''is,'' and this ''is-ness,'' is the means by which it accomplishes everything that it does.
Letting my experiences dictate my perception is like trying to make the water calm by punching and kicking at ripples in the water. I am the reason why I suffer, I am the reason I am at peace.
...''imagination triumphs over desire'' - The Power of Your Subconscious Mind
Optimism is a choice, not a result of the environment. Then again, it CAN be a result of the environment. That choice is yours, though.
Discipline is not something forced on you, that you have to obey, ''like it or not.'' Real discipline is an expression/manifestation of what is truly in the heart. Success is nothing beyond the earnest application of your best effort towards that discipline.
''Is 'it' all about diminishing the self, or simply trying to realise the truth? Once you do this, you see that what you tried to diminish before was an illusion. There is no need for the former conflict; it isn't real.''
The quest for knowledge, denying the relevance of faith, is all the while fueled by a faith that faith is invalid.
Things that you never find in real love: feelings of greed, selfishness, fear, jealousy, ruthlessness, desperation, etc., are the voids, like holes in the ground. Acting in accord with emotions that are not in agreement with love will not bring a fulfilling resolution. It's always possible to make the holes bigger, but filling them up can only last so long until they aren't holes anymore.
Revenge only seems right, but hate is like a hole in the ground. If I add another hole, I've increased the problem and subordinated myself to the preservation of what actually wronged me--hate. ''Whosoever diggeth a pit, the same shall fall in.''
***1.) Disregarding ''absolutes'' such as mathematical facts, belief is the cause and creator of perception and reality.
2.) Each person believes a different thing.
3.) Then there is no such thing as a misconception.
a.) ''According to your belief, it is done unto you.''
b.) ''As a man thinks in his heart, so will he be.''
c.) ''the thing I have dreaded has come upon me!''
4.) What we choose to believe is never ''true or false.'' There is a diversified field of goals that one has. Goals traditionally reckoned as ''good'' are closer to accord with the lifeward principle, and the loving nature thereof.
-Seeing has never been believing;
-Faith has never been dependent upon proof
-Faith produces its own proof.
-Belief has nothing to do with an intellectual deduction.
-Beliefs are measured by the merit of the things they elicit.
-Belief/faith is a moral issue, not an intellectual one.
''When you are observing your path, you are far from it. Your path is freedom. Name it, and it vanishes.'' - Mike Bann
''don't pray for an easy life, but pray for the strength to endure a difficult one.'' - Bruce Lee
''you know, I've always wanted to invent something someday. ...but i wouldn't want to like, revolutionise the toilet. Thomas Crapper invented that. i wouldn't want people saying ''maaan, hurry up in there! i gotta take a HUGE helfer like, rite now!''
''be not afraid of growing slowly, only be afraid of standing idle.''
''only in still water can a man see his reflection, but only in turbulence can he become more than he is.'' - me
''you can't walk on water if you don't step out of the boat''
''never test depth of water with both feet''
''as a man thinks in his heart, so he is.'' - Bible
''what you feed thrives, what you starve dies.''
''one person with belief is equal to a force of 99 who only have interest.'' - John Stewart Mill
''Contentment and love can't be chased, they must be ''started.'' Just like 'you don't sing nutrition. You take it in.' ''
''Everyone meditates. People who say they meditate just do it on purpose, for certain goals.''
Karma is not a ''bitch.'' One atom of sodium and one atom of chlorine combine to form salt; not because they're ''vengeful little shits.'' It's just what happens. If you eat some really rotten food, you will get sick. Karma which seems to ''pull no punches'' is essential for a reality in which our free will is 100% free. If there were ''divine bumpers'' all over the ''bowling alley of life,'' how could our choices ever be our own? In order for free will to exist, the choices, as well as the consequences must be completely our own.
People were not made to serve religion; religion was made to serve people. Devotion to religions can be a very dangerous thing because they're built on faith, not solid facts. No religion is correct; it's just not something religions can be. If a religion could be proven, it would be called knowledge, since faith has no room to work in the absence of doubt. Religions are just tools to help us understand the true nature of reality.
I say ''lifeward principle'' a lot, and that's mostly because I don't think any religion can be correct, at all; but they each hit on some important ideas....''principles,'' which are pervasively true. The principles are the important things, but the diverse religions are important, too. I may have nailed down some principles, but to hear the interpretation of those principles from a new angle brings the same understanding in a new light that I needed, and that I already had all the pieces to, but never thought to put them together like that.
There is truth in them, just as there is the divine lifeward principle acting in ALL of us. If I make a mistake, or hurt somebody's feelings, does that mean I'm less of a human than anyone else?
So, if a religion presents ideas that seem totally backward from what I'm used to, does that mean that it is completely useless and devoid of ''the lifeward principle?'' I think the caveats of religions serve an important purpose (probably among many others) that no one religion ought to be praised and exalted above the rest, as though its preservation is more important than the founding doctrines thereof.
A “fool” is still my brother or sister, who simply has been fooled. There is no need, no cause, and no room for condemnation or contempt.
If I'm attached to something, I don't really like the thing, I like the feelings that I choose to associate with that thing. If I don't like someone, it's only my perception of that person that I don't like. Hate is a lie. I cannot condemn/judge/hate someone and understand them at the same time. I always make a choice, either way.
Belief can't be ''tested,'' only trusted, because belief is not the same as knowledge.
Maybe depression is just "the universe's" way of saying ''you are very much loved, appreciated, and important in my eyes, but you don't yet fully understand how pervasively or profoundly this is true." And maybe depression is like a gift from a coconut tree that must first be cracked open; rather than just toting it around, resigning one's self to it as an extra weight. Not with anger or frustration, but with a nonetheless vigorous attitude of action, '''cause we're never gonna survive unless we get a little crazy.''
The specific type of religion doesn't have as much of an effect on you as the way you approach the religion.
The chains of my own mental slavery are nothing more than my own white-knuckle grip on the situation. Love is the only thing that can bring about the cessation of such conflicts because it is, itself the cessation of conflicts—love simply ''is,'' and this ''is-ness,'' is the means by which it accomplishes everything that it does.
Letting my experiences dictate my perception is like trying to make the water calm by punching and kicking at ripples in the water. I am the reason why I suffer, I am the reason I am at peace.
...''imagination triumphs over desire'' - The Power of Your Subconscious Mind
Optimism is a choice, not a result of the environment. Then again, it CAN be a result of the environment. That choice is yours, though.
Discipline is not something forced on you, that you have to obey, ''like it or not.'' Real discipline is an expression/manifestation of what is truly in the heart. Success is nothing beyond the earnest application of your best effort towards that discipline.
''Is 'it' all about diminishing the self, or simply trying to realise the truth? Once you do this, you see that what you tried to diminish before was an illusion. There is no need for the former conflict; it isn't real.''
The quest for knowledge, denying the relevance of faith, is all the while fueled by a faith that faith is invalid.
Things that you never find in real love: feelings of greed, selfishness, fear, jealousy, ruthlessness, desperation, etc., are the voids, like holes in the ground. Acting in accord with emotions that are not in agreement with love will not bring a fulfilling resolution. It's always possible to make the holes bigger, but filling them up can only last so long until they aren't holes anymore.
Revenge only seems right, but hate is like a hole in the ground. If I add another hole, I've increased the problem and subordinated myself to the preservation of what actually wronged me--hate. ''Whosoever diggeth a pit, the same shall fall in.''
***1.) Disregarding ''absolutes'' such as mathematical facts, belief is the cause and creator of perception and reality.
2.) Each person believes a different thing.
3.) Then there is no such thing as a misconception.
a.) ''According to your belief, it is done unto you.''
b.) ''As a man thinks in his heart, so will he be.''
c.) ''the thing I have dreaded has come upon me!''
4.) What we choose to believe is never ''true or false.'' There is a diversified field of goals that one has. Goals traditionally reckoned as ''good'' are closer to accord with the lifeward principle, and the loving nature thereof.
-Seeing has never been believing;
-Faith has never been dependent upon proof
-Faith produces its own proof.
-Belief has nothing to do with an intellectual deduction.
-Beliefs are measured by the merit of the things they elicit.
-Belief/faith is a moral issue, not an intellectual one.
''When you are observing your path, you are far from it. Your path is freedom. Name it, and it vanishes.'' - Mike Bann
''don't pray for an easy life, but pray for the strength to endure a difficult one.'' - Bruce Lee
''you know, I've always wanted to invent something someday. ...but i wouldn't want to like, revolutionise the toilet. Thomas Crapper invented that. i wouldn't want people saying ''maaan, hurry up in there! i gotta take a HUGE helfer like, rite now!''
''be not afraid of growing slowly, only be afraid of standing idle.''
''only in still water can a man see his reflection, but only in turbulence can he become more than he is.'' - me
''you can't walk on water if you don't step out of the boat''
''never test depth of water with both feet''
''as a man thinks in his heart, so he is.'' - Bible
''what you feed thrives, what you starve dies.''
''one person with belief is equal to a force of 99 who only have interest.'' - John Stewart Mill
''Contentment and love can't be chased, they must be ''started.'' Just like 'you don't sing nutrition. You take it in.' ''
''Everyone meditates. People who say they meditate just do it on purpose, for certain goals.''
Karma is not a ''bitch.'' One atom of sodium and one atom of chlorine combine to form salt; not because they're ''vengeful little shits.'' It's just what happens. If you eat some really rotten food, you will get sick. Karma which seems to ''pull no punches'' is essential for a reality in which our free will is 100% free. If there were ''divine bumpers'' all over the ''bowling alley of life,'' how could our choices ever be our own? In order for free will to exist, the choices, as well as the consequences must be completely our own.
People were not made to serve religion; religion was made to serve people. Devotion to religions can be a very dangerous thing because they're built on faith, not solid facts. No religion is correct; it's just not something religions can be. If a religion could be proven, it would be called knowledge, since faith has no room to work in the absence of doubt. Religions are just tools to help us understand the true nature of reality.
I say ''lifeward principle'' a lot, and that's mostly because I don't think any religion can be correct, at all; but they each hit on some important ideas....''principles,'' which are pervasively true. The principles are the important things, but the diverse religions are important, too. I may have nailed down some principles, but to hear the interpretation of those principles from a new angle brings the same understanding in a new light that I needed, and that I already had all the pieces to, but never thought to put them together like that.
There is truth in them, just as there is the divine lifeward principle acting in ALL of us. If I make a mistake, or hurt somebody's feelings, does that mean I'm less of a human than anyone else?
So, if a religion presents ideas that seem totally backward from what I'm used to, does that mean that it is completely useless and devoid of ''the lifeward principle?'' I think the caveats of religions serve an important purpose (probably among many others) that no one religion ought to be praised and exalted above the rest, as though its preservation is more important than the founding doctrines thereof.
A “fool” is still my brother or sister, who simply has been fooled. There is no need, no cause, and no room for condemnation or contempt.
If I'm attached to something, I don't really like the thing, I like the feelings that I choose to associate with that thing. If I don't like someone, it's only my perception of that person that I don't like. Hate is a lie. I cannot condemn/judge/hate someone and understand them at the same time. I always make a choice, either way.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Forgiveness
There is an understanding that needs to take place: that all ''evil'' and ''conflicts'' that we perceive are manifested as a result of misconceptions about the true nature of reality and the true nature of ourselves. And there is also a need to understand and acknowledge the (hypothetical) ''other guy,'' and what he was trying to do; though it may at first appear very much twisted around from what I thought was most conducive to my own goals and ideas, this person thought it worthwhile to do whatever it is that he did.
Simply coming to peace with, and accepting this “terrible” thing that he did while still holding to the idea that ''gosh, that was a rotten thing for him to do, I sure had a right to be angry at him'' is not so much “forgiveness” as it is a lying to oneself, in order to cover up for a mislead picture of reality. Forgiveness isn't about telling myself that what the other person did was wrong, and I’m right, but I’ll do my best to act like it never happened, in order to cultivate peace. It's about seeing the other person for who they truly are, appreciating them, feeling ''unbearable compassion'' and acknowledging them, as well as what they were trying to do.
We are living things, and as living things, our basic basic BASIC (read: ''true'') nature is that which is in accord with the loving nature of the “principle which has no opposite.'' It has no opposite/no conflict, because it is, itself, the cessation of conflicts;'' all things that appear to be in opposition to it are simply misconceptions--they don't exist, except as labels in our own minds. This “principle” can't really be described accurately as ''the greater good'' since ''good'' needs ''bad'' to define it. It simply ''is.''
Suppose a man decides to embrace the idea that ''the expression of hate, through words, actions, thoughts, and motives towards others and my interactions with them, is essential to my own peace and contentment.''
1.) Does that mean HE is evil, or simply mistaken? A fool is still my brother or sister, who simply has been fooled. There is no need, no cause, and no room for condemnation nor contempt.
2.) Alright, so he is my brother, I ought to love him, BUT is his IDEA ''bad/evil?'' Not necessarily…In fact, not at all. If I were in his exact position, I would be in his exact position. His idea may not seem very conducive to bringing real peace and contentment, and it is likely to hurt many people, so it is certainly not conducive to their own goals either; but ''less conducive to the principle which has no opposite'' is as far as it can be labeled. Besides, he wouldn't have thought his actions to be ''more backwards than forward'' or he wouldn't be embracing them in the first place. Yes, he is mistaken. His idea is not ''evil;'' rather, simply one of the many possible courses of action that any of us would have chosen, were we in his exact situation. His basic nature is the same as everyone else's. He just has some misconceptions regarding how to see its realisation.
STOP…
Stop it right there, I'm butting up against the (potentially) controversial idea that there are absolute truths. Example: A wealthy man buys everything he wants, whenever he wants, but after some time, notices that this does not make him happy. At first, he is able to get himself to believe that buying everything he thinks he wants is making him content. After some time with it; however, he sees that he is not happy. At this point, regardless of what he TRIES to believe, he is unhappy. Belief, with emotion, it is a creator of reality and perception. His idea that “my happiness is contingent upon buying things I desire” is broadcasting the “creative blueprint” that “I do not possess contentment, it must be BOUGHT.” This builds a perception and reality for this man that he lacks something, and must continually buy and buy and buy. Belief and emotion create reality and perception; if you choose to not believe this is so, then that will be “true,” but only for you, and only because you believed it. This is the way “it” works, and this is one absolute. For now; hopefully, I have allowed for the feasible conjecture of the existence of absolutes.
ONWARD…
3.) Okay, so, he's mistaken in his thoughts, but not ''evil.'' Okay, okay, okay, so this man's heart is in the right place, but as far as bringing about what would be classically reckoned as the ''greater good,'' he truly doesn't ''get it.'' What about the misconception which allowed such a thought process in his mind, then? Is that ''evil?'' Is a misconception evil? Is it not one of the most natural occurrences in a reality in which we don't know everything, and may not even be ready to accept the things we may or may not yet have the capacity to learn? This man’s actions, thoughts, words, and motives are confined to the scope of what he is able to understand, accept, and perceive, regarding his true nature. Our growth comes from discovering, realising, and accepting more and more of the true nature of ourselves.
Some of the implications of this theoretical man who embraced ''hate'' are
1.) Each person can only conduct himself according to the scope of what he is able to understand, AND ready to accept, regarding his own personally defined PERCEPTION his true nature--you can only act according to what you can and do understand about what your true nature entails.
A. Sort of like saying ''you can't out-think yourself,'' because as soon as you think of something, you're already thinking of it. But you can define the things you think about, and you can think about things you’ve never thought of before.
2.) Our only true ''avenue of progress'' is the ability to discover this true nature; not how rich, strong, popular I can get. Since I'm only ever going to conduct myself according to my understanding, acceptance, and perception of my true nature, my only TRUE [ability/means of significance] is the ability to discover myself; reshaping my understanding, acceptance, and perception of my true nature, according to what I discover.
A. It's an unfolding process, sort of like the game ''warmer or colder.'' There is no ''wrong,'' or ''evil;'' just ''warmer'' or ''colder,'' in relation to how close to accurately understanding and perceiving the true nature I can get. But, given all the strengths and weaknesses I have, I’m doing the best I can do, at all times, and anyone else in my EXACT situation, would be making precisely the same amount of progress. There is no "slacker," because we would be in their exact position, if we were in their exact position. There is only room for understanding and the actions, words, thoughts, and motives of love. This calls for new motivations for everything I do in life.
3.) This chance for significance is made possible because of the fact that we don't already know everything about this true nature, but we get to discover it.
A. Otherwise, we're just doing what's in our nature to do. What's new/special about that?
i. A dog barks. So what? Dogs bark. Does that make one dog MORE of a dog, compared to another dog which does not bark as much? There is no significance in a dog barking, that’s just what they do.
ii. If I only do what’s in my nature to do, what is that? That’s what robots do. If I’m only made into a human, I can only do what a human would do, BUT I CAN uncover a clearer picture of what my true nature is that is YET unknown to me.
a. At some point, the “rat race” was formed, which is simply people allowing themselves to be lead around exclusively by their perceptions of their nature (rather than the other way around, though, that cannot be a means of grading anyone, either, since everyone does the best that anyone could ever do, in that exact spot.), using this as a means of grading, judging and blaming people as good and bad. All the while, we’ve been “rat-racing,” just being what we think we are, judging others as “wrong,” or “bad,” or “not as good as I am,” or “not as correct as I am,” when the more accurate description of the "rat race" is that we are all just dogs, barking, and with each bark, thinking “I am the truest of all dogs because I am barking precisely the way that I do. I do this better than all the others around me.” All ''good'' and ''evil'' labels only exist because we choose to see them as such. We all have fears, we all desire appreciation (which is a form of fear itself; in fact, all attachments to outcomes are fears.), and all this fear can make us exceedingly selfish. If I desire appreciation, that manifests the idea I’m holding to that I don’t have it now, and I need to have it. This creates the reality in which I truly HAVE such a deficit, and the only way to be appreciated more than anyone else is to make myself out to be more “appreciatable” than others around me. This "works" because we’re all thinking the same way: that we’re all separated in the first place. It's not hard to imagine how such a misconception could come about.
It can’t accurately be said that “oh, well, you had EVERY RIGHT to be upset by what he did to you.”
It is UNDERSTANDABLE if someone gets offended, because, obviously, they were operating on some kind of logic to arrive at the conclusion that “this should be upsetting.” But the logical deduction that leads to upset feelings is based on the idea that “I’m RIGHT, and YOU are WRONG because YOU did something WRONG to me,” while turning a blind eye/deaf ear to the equal validity of the other person, who, mislead as they may have been, was simply doing what they thought to be best, as well as simply denying the other person. More separation.
This is how being upset only perpetuates that which really offended me in the first place. That person’s action didn’t offend me, my train of logic, built on a foundation of unclear understanding is what caused me to reason “oh, well, by that logic, I should be hurt and upset by this.” What’s even worse is that it causes me to dwell on that reasoning, rather than looking for solutions, and truly understanding this other person, which would have helped me avoid being “hurt” in the first place. That which truly offends me is my own choosing to be offended, which, in turn, perpetuates the feelings of being offended. (Dr. Wayne Dyer: "That which offends you only weakens you. Being offended creates the same destructive energy that offended you in the first place....")
Free will is a form of ignorance. It exists in those without a comprehensive understanding of their true true true nature. Ignorance is ''bliss." Ignorance is not being a ''robot.''
Then again, all our frustrations come from unfulfilled desires. To act against this true true true nature, even if we only understand a small portion of it, breeds frustrations.
Thank God for frustration; otherwise, we might never be aware that something doesn't "fit." Frustrations aren't the enemy. To those looking for this true true true nature, they are like a glass wall, leaving ''smudges'' everywhere they tried to go previously.
I can't be sure that there is anyone who is not "looking," to some degree, but not everyone sees frustrations/trials of life the same way.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
''Is there a God?'' -A case for agnosticism
I would propose that: everyone has a god. Whatever you desperately submit to, whatever thing, idea, faith, etc. it is that you serve with your thoughts, actions, words, and decisions, that is your god. It could be your personal interpretation of an idea of a god outlined in a religion, it could simply be a goal you have for yourself. Sort of like ''no one can escape the workings of faith,'' although not everyone follows a religious faith, religiously.
But is there a God? To me, yes. Can this be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt? No. Can it be disproved? No. Does that make me an agnostic?
Faith is a decision, independent of comprehensive intellectual evidence; therefore, faith in God and ''proof'' are mutually exclusive. Isn't agnosticism basically a given, then?
But is there a God? To me, yes. Can this be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt? No. Can it be disproved? No. Does that make me an agnostic?
Faith is a decision, independent of comprehensive intellectual evidence; therefore, faith in God and ''proof'' are mutually exclusive. Isn't agnosticism basically a given, then?
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
I Want to Hug Every Gay Person--Ever
Today, someone told me ''homosexuality is a detestable sin.''
Even if that is true, what sin wouldn't be ''a detestable sin?'' (to God, I mean) Which sin shall I abstain from that I might earn myself eternal life?
Are we not all trapped by a sinful nature? I don't see the point in separating ''them'' from me by treating them as though they have a disease to be ''cured from.''
So, if it is a sin, it still harms nobody. Not like lying, stealing, murdering, or smoking. If it hurts no one, how is it my business, whatsoever? Am I God's CIA agent?
And about making it illegal for gays to marry, that's just full-on backward movement for conservative Christians. Did Jesus say ''the greatest commandment of all is this: vote against same sex marriage and make sure you fulfill the law TO THE LETTER, and make your governments into a theocracy because I'm coming to reign here on earth right now. Let's break all the bruised reeds and snuff out all the glowing cinders.'' I see you scratching your head. Jesus said ''the greatest commandment is to love your neighbour as yourself.''
No Christian will likely have any success telling a gay person ''God hates homosexuality.'' So how is it going to win anyone over if they try to pass legislation that removes the rights of gays to marry?
Love, or legislation? Decisions, decisions.
I think I need to find a gay church...
Then, a conservative gallie said:
'Matthew 7:21-23 not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father, which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful ... See Moreworks? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
Luke 13:5, "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."
2 Chronicles 7:14, "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."
1 John 2:4, "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
Some people may believe they will go to heaven, but they will not because they are not doing God's will. In order to know Jesus, we must keep his commandments.
It is true that we can't control all our thoughts. But there are certainly things that we can control. The Bible says we should have self-control in our lives. That is the Fruit of the Spirit.
Galatians 5:22-23
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
To which I responded:
Even if that is true, what sin wouldn't be ''a detestable sin?'' (to God, I mean) Which sin shall I abstain from that I might earn myself eternal life?
Are we not all trapped by a sinful nature? I don't see the point in separating ''them'' from me by treating them as though they have a disease to be ''cured from.''
So, if it is a sin, it still harms nobody. Not like lying, stealing, murdering, or smoking. If it hurts no one, how is it my business, whatsoever? Am I God's CIA agent?
And about making it illegal for gays to marry, that's just full-on backward movement for conservative Christians. Did Jesus say ''the greatest commandment of all is this: vote against same sex marriage and make sure you fulfill the law TO THE LETTER, and make your governments into a theocracy because I'm coming to reign here on earth right now. Let's break all the bruised reeds and snuff out all the glowing cinders.'' I see you scratching your head. Jesus said ''the greatest commandment is to love your neighbour as yourself.''
No Christian will likely have any success telling a gay person ''God hates homosexuality.'' So how is it going to win anyone over if they try to pass legislation that removes the rights of gays to marry?
Love, or legislation? Decisions, decisions.
I think I need to find a gay church...
Then, a conservative gallie said:
'Matthew 7:21-23 not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father, which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful ... See Moreworks? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
Luke 13:5, "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."
2 Chronicles 7:14, "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."
1 John 2:4, "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
Some people may believe they will go to heaven, but they will not because they are not doing God's will. In order to know Jesus, we must keep his commandments.
It is true that we can't control all our thoughts. But there are certainly things that we can control. The Bible says we should have self-control in our lives. That is the Fruit of the Spirit.
Galatians 5:22-23
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
To which I responded:
The Wrath of God? Really?
The wrath of God? Really? Is God just itching to dump out his wrath on us, that he's held out on for sooooo long, but boy, when it's time, he's really gonna let us have it? Does God hold a grudge? Really...?
My two cents:
''Wrath of God'' is a misnomer. It's not that God is so angry with us that He plots out his revenge on us, carefully guarding his hidden hurts to keep himself cold hearted enough to stick to his plan of ''delicious retaliation.'' ''The wrath of God'' and even the saying ''vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.'' Really don't gel well with the idea that ''God is love.'' Does love take pleasure in seeking vengeance, satisfying an ''itch'' to ''fix someone's clock?'' These things might seem comforting to those who ''need'' to feel that they will be avenged, but can such an ''itch'' even exist within perfect love?
I propose that: ''the wrath of God'' is just another title for what some call ''karma.'' Karma isn't ''a bitch,'' any more than the combination of one atom of sodium and one atom of chlorine to form a molecule of NaCl is ''a bitch.'' Karma is just what happens. If you eat bad food, you will get sick; not because God is punishing you or taking out his frustrations on you.
The presence of karma that ''pulls no punches'' is essential to a reality in which our free will is 100% free--free from uninvited divine influence to force us, or even to sway us to any degree, to abstain from things that will harm us.
And to harmonise with the bible, not necessarily with organised religion: God doesn't force people to be christians, He lets them believe whatever they want. One theologian put it like this: ''where does a 600 pound gorilla sleep in the jungle? --ANYWHERE he wants! Man DOES have sovereignty, but if he's smart, he'll hand it right back over to God.'' God doesn't force us to do, say, choose, or believe anything. He lets us learn on our own, so that the choices we make are entirely ours. How else can there be a ''test'' in it, upon which we are ''graded'' at the end of our lives? ''Sparing'' us from the consequences of our own choices would be a subtraction from the freedoms we have as beings with a free will. ''Free will'' would be a joke, and karma would be the punchline. This principle of karma is described in the bible, as it relates to consequences of our choices; and it operates in our lives.
So then, the most important ''commandment'' is to love and exalt as the ultimate example of living: love itself; and in turn, to emulate the nature of love towards those within the scope of our influence. One cannot do this if one does not see ''love'' as ''God.'' ''No one can serve two masters.''
Is God vengeful? Is he just *itching* to really let some people have it?
My two cents:
''Wrath of God'' is a misnomer. It's not that God is so angry with us that He plots out his revenge on us, carefully guarding his hidden hurts to keep himself cold hearted enough to stick to his plan of ''delicious retaliation.'' ''The wrath of God'' and even the saying ''vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.'' Really don't gel well with the idea that ''God is love.'' Does love take pleasure in seeking vengeance, satisfying an ''itch'' to ''fix someone's clock?'' These things might seem comforting to those who ''need'' to feel that they will be avenged, but can such an ''itch'' even exist within perfect love?
I propose that: ''the wrath of God'' is just another title for what some call ''karma.'' Karma isn't ''a bitch,'' any more than the combination of one atom of sodium and one atom of chlorine to form a molecule of NaCl is ''a bitch.'' Karma is just what happens. If you eat bad food, you will get sick; not because God is punishing you or taking out his frustrations on you.
The presence of karma that ''pulls no punches'' is essential to a reality in which our free will is 100% free--free from uninvited divine influence to force us, or even to sway us to any degree, to abstain from things that will harm us.
And to harmonise with the bible, not necessarily with organised religion: God doesn't force people to be christians, He lets them believe whatever they want. One theologian put it like this: ''where does a 600 pound gorilla sleep in the jungle? --ANYWHERE he wants! Man DOES have sovereignty, but if he's smart, he'll hand it right back over to God.'' God doesn't force us to do, say, choose, or believe anything. He lets us learn on our own, so that the choices we make are entirely ours. How else can there be a ''test'' in it, upon which we are ''graded'' at the end of our lives? ''Sparing'' us from the consequences of our own choices would be a subtraction from the freedoms we have as beings with a free will. ''Free will'' would be a joke, and karma would be the punchline. This principle of karma is described in the bible, as it relates to consequences of our choices; and it operates in our lives.
So then, the most important ''commandment'' is to love and exalt as the ultimate example of living: love itself; and in turn, to emulate the nature of love towards those within the scope of our influence. One cannot do this if one does not see ''love'' as ''God.'' ''No one can serve two masters.''
Is God vengeful? Is he just *itching* to really let some people have it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I thought it was by faith, not works, that no one may boast.
Indeed, which of my righteous acts (which are as filthy rags) will get me into heaven?
I like that verse from Luke that you used.
Luke 13:3 says the same thing as 13:5. I think it's quite fitting, actually. It's talking about some Galileans whom Pilate had put to death while making a sacrifice. Jesus asked them ''Do you think those Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, since they suffered such things? I tell you no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.''
In this instance, Jesus is referring to a physical catastrophe, not hell. The notion at the time was that those who suffered a particularly harsh calamity were guilty of a more serious sin. Jesus is not denying that calamities can be the fruit of certain sins; but more importantly, Jesus was challenging the notion of those present that they were morally superior to those who suffered such calamities.
1.) According to the classical christian interpretation of the bible, any single sin, no matter how small or grand I may think it as (and what's it matter what I think, anyway. It's not like God's begging me for MY opinion), earns me an eternity in hell.
2.) Sooner or later I'll have a sinful thought that will earn me hell.
So, really, I'm not morally superior to homosexuals. Surprise, surprise. No matter how much abstaining from evil I THINK I'm doing, I still can't live up to God's commands. This is the crux of Christianity: that I'm not good enough to do it on my own. Those who thought they had earned their salvation through their superior obedience to the law were most sharply rebuked by Jesus.
So, what you're saying is that I'm going to hell, too, since I can't stop sinning, just like gays?