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.
Showing posts with label Who is God?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Who is God?. Show all posts
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.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
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)