LSP40: Atheism: Blindness to the Question of Scale

The National Post has been very brave in the past few days.

First, it ran a major story on the current religious beliefs of Canadians. The article, called "A God? That's complicated. Canadians hanging on to personal faith as organized religion declines: poll," was published on April 5, 2015 and was based on a new Angus Reid poll.

Second, the Post offered readers a chance to answer the question "Do You Believe in God?"  Not only did the Post print a selection of the letters it received, it allowed 966 on-line comments before finally closing the debate.

It was great to see such an enormous spectrum of thought in one place.  Comments ranged from extreme atheism to extreme fideism, with everything in between.  It was refreshing and encouraging to see an actual debate with thoughtful and cogent offerings from regular Canadians on a topic that matters to many.  The Post editors, bucking the current trend of sanitizing and pre-packaging controversial ideas so no one's feelings will be hurt, took the audacious approach of allowing breadth in the debate.  I applaud the editors for their courage.

Something that emerged for me as I reflected on the varied comments was a better understanding of the schism that exists between atheists and theists.*

One comment, written by a prolific comment writer named Life's Traveller, really drew my attention and prompted me to reply.  In part, this is what he (she?) said:

In terms of religions, I just can't accept anything that my equally (and in many cases, greatly over-achievingly) ignorant fellow humans have to say about this. When we all hear the same, clear and consistent, story, straight from god with no human mediation (prophets, etc.), with ample amounts of irrefutable direct evidence, and explanations, testable under the most rigorous conditions that the brightest among us can devise, then I'll conditionally accept it ... perhaps.

I challenged this line of reasoning a couple of times, then Life Traveller came back with this:

"The God I trust and the God who sustains me every day is the God I see everywhere around me in the world of science" [quoting my previous comment]
Please be specific, and include your reasoning as to why exactly the god that you speak of in personal terms (who you trust and who sustains you), is absolutely necessary for whatever example that you choose to produce as a valid demonstration of the presence/existence/influence of "a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity" (according to Oxford).

It took me all night to figure out why this line of reasoning (a line of reasoning shared by many atheists) is so psychologically and spiritually abusive when aimed at those of us who believe in God.

It's abusive because of the implicit assumption it tries to force on me. (I'm using myself here as an example of a person of faith, but I think other people of faith feel this way, too, in the face of militant atheism).  It tries at the very outset to force me to agree to take on the "burden of proof" for someone else who is either too lazy or too narcissistic to accept the responsibility for using his or her own brain in the most balanced, holistic way possible.  It tries to force me to put on blinders (as if I can't see God in the world "out there").  It tries to force me to use only human laws and human reasoning (as if I can't see God uses universal laws, not human laws).  It tries to force me to agree with the fairy tale imaginings of human minds that worship Materialism (and worship themselves).  Then, when I balk at these unfair starting assumptions (because they're not based in scientific reality), I'll be blamed for bringing mouldy bread to the table instead of the pure goblet of "truth."  It will all be my fault, according to the atheist.  And because it's my fault, I'll deserve to be punished.  This will make it okay for the atheist to deride me, deride God, and raise himself up on a pedestal of smug superiority.

All the while, he's assuming his interpretations of the laws of physics are "right."  He's using his "right to be right" as a foundation, a starting place, and he intends to sit in his comfortable place of "rightness" and feast on the imperfections and inadequacies of humans who believe in God.  Sure, it's schadenfreude disguised as the pure goblet of truth, but if the atheist can keep me from noticing that -- if he can keep me thinking it's all my fault that he's so miserable -- then can he enjoy a lasting banquet of guilt, shame, inadequacy, and unworthiness from those of us who buy into his Materialist fairy tale.

But, you know, it's not my fault.

It's not my fault that the atheist has consciously and willingly chosen to believe that the Materialist laws of cause and effect govern everything in the universe.  It's not my fault that the atheist has chosen to deny that the laws of physics governing baryonic matter represent only a small fraction of the total number of laws of physics in the universe.  (Baryonic matter, which makes up the atoms and molecules we think of as "real" while we're on Planet Earth, represents only about 4 to 5% of the total energy of the known universe.)  It's not my fault that the atheist can't -- or won't -- see the complexity and weirdness and relationships that govern quantum interactions.

It's not my responsibility to bring to the atheist's table a "proof" based solely on Materialist laws of cause and effect.

It's especially not my responsibility that the atheist simply can't cope with the questions and complexities that arise from scale.

It isn't possible to talk about God without always bearing in mind the question of scale.  God the Mother and God the Father are very, very big.  They're also very, very smart.  To ask anyone to describe God using only their own personal experiences and their own personal scientific knowledge is not fair, not justifiable, and not even a tiny bit humble.  Each one of us can provide only a small piece of the overall portrait of God.  Each small piece is important and valid, but no one piece (and no one person) can provide everything we hope to know. 

For those of us living as human beings on Planet Earth, we can't begin to get a sense of who God is unless we're willing to approach the question of God with scale in mind.

Moon in a daylit sky.  (The moon is in this photo, but it's small and hard to see).  If you're not filled with awe and wonder when you look at sky like this, you're not paying attention to what your soul finds beautiful.  Photo JAT 2015.

To get a true snapshot of who God really is, we'd have to take a poll of all living creatures on Planet Earth and then collate all our individual experiences and insights in a vast meta-study.  It wouldn't be sufficient to poll only human beings.  Human beings represent a small portion of God's children on Planet Earth, and human experiences are necessarily narrow in scope compared to the whole picture of God's relationship with Creation.  Humans don't have all the answers.

Humans who want to know God and be in relationship with God have to get over their own human self-importance. They have to accept with humbleness and courage that about 95% of the laws of physics governing their lives are not straightforward and not predictable and not within their complete and utter control.  (Have you met any atheists who aren't controlling Type A perfectionists?  I haven't.)

You're only human, and the fact that you get to play with even 4–5% of the laws of physics while you're here is really quite something (when you think of the whole scale of Creation, that is).

But don't be thinkin' God is required to squeeze into that small little packet of baryonic reality (like the Genie in Aladdin's Lamp) so you can be spared the challenge of "thinking bigger." If you want to know God, you're going to have to go outside your comfort zone and you're going to have to accept that what you find out there won't be designed from a neat and tidy human point of view. 

As the X-files used to say, "The proof is out there."

Or maybe, more properly, in there -- where quantum reality lies.

God bless.

(* Sorry for all the editing I had to do on this piece.  Sometimes new ideas take a while to "gel" and the relevance of "scale" is new to my philosophical paradigm.  Plus I found scads of typos!  Sorry if I created any confusion.  I hope today's additions to this post have made my thoughts clearer. Jen, April 11, 2015)

LSP37: The Coat of Many Colours: What Scientology Teaches Us About Gnosticism

There's only thing I like about L. Ron Hubbard's cult of Scientology, and that's the way it serves as a teaching tool about the brutal efficiency of prophetic "revelation."

This morning, on the BBC site, I found a wonderful article by Owen Gleiberman about the new Alex Gibney documentary on Scientology. The documentary, called "Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief" has been attracting a lot of attention since its release earlier this year. The film is in turned based on the 2013 book by Lawrence Wright called "Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood and the Prison of Belief."

Gleiberman ends his article by saying this:

The twisted genius of L Ron Hubbard is that he figured out a way to define and exploit contemporary soul sickness. He was right about the disease. But Going Clear makes a powerful case that he came up with a cure that only made it worse.

Yes, L. Ron Hubbard was a twisted genius. As Gleiberman notes, the film "captures how Hubbard fused reality, fantasy and the pursuit of enlightenment in a way that, according to the film's witnesses, expressed his own highly unstable and even violent nature."

This is what prophets do.

(Please note that I draw clear distinctions between the terms "prophet" and "mystic." For me, the term "prophet" is reserved for an individual of dubious mental health who uses claims of "divine revelation" to establish his or her primacy of authority over others. By contrast, I use the term "mystic" to refer to individuals who are on the extreme end of the "intuition" spectrum, most of whom go through life as writers and philosophers without becoming consciously aware of their vocation as "mystics.")

A prophet isn't interested in teaching people how to heal their relationship with God. A prophet is instead interested in crafting an entire "philosophy of science" (a cosmogony, if you will) for the purpose of explaining to you in ruthlessly logical ways why you should hand over your integrity; your money; your free will; your core self of worthiness and wisdom; and your relationship with God.

The coat of many colours you were born with is stripped away from you, and in its place you're given a "new and improved" garment of ash.

You're told when you put it on that you're donning the pure white garb of enlightenment. You're told that you're abandoning the burden of emotion, replacing the heaviness of emotion with the weightlessness of pure reason. You're told that all the proof you need lies around you in the Materialist laws of Cause and Effect. You're told that when you see past of the illusions you've created for yourself, you'll suddenly recognize that you can transcend your lowly humanness and reclaim your rightful place in the universe as God. Or Buddha. Or Thetan (as Scientologists describe it).

The garment you've been given reeks of pure narcissism. It reeks of the prophet's absolute refusal to accept that he's a mere child of God. It reeks of his conviction that he himself is so omniscient and so omnipotent that he surely MUST be a god who has lost his memory of his own godhood and fallen to Earth, where he's obliged to dig his way out of Earth's heavy muck so he can stop being reincarnated here.

So have I conflated several different religious beliefs here? On the surface, it would seem so. But no.  What I've done here is describe a single religious paradigm that manifests again and again in humanity's many diverse cultures, not because it's right but because it so beautifully suits the psychological needs of bullies, tyrants, narcissists, and psychopaths.

What I've described here is Gnosticism.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Scientology's underlying cosmogony:

Scientology beliefs revolve around the thetan, the individualized expression of the cosmic source, or life force, named after the Greek letter theta (θ). The thetan is the true identity of a person – an intrinsically good, omniscient, non-material core capable of unlimited creativity. 

In the primordial past, thetans brought the material universe into being largely for their own pleasure. The universe has no independent reality, but derives its apparent reality from the fact that most thetans agree it exists. Thetans fell from grace when they began to identify with their creation, rather than their original state of spiritual purity.  Eventually they lost their memory of their true nature, along with the associated spiritual and creative powers. As a result, thetans came to think of themselves as nothing but embodied beings.

Thetans are reborn time and time again in new bodies through a process called "assumption" which is analogous to reincarnation. Like Hinduism, Scientology posits a causal relationship between the experiences of earlier incarnations and one's present life, and with each rebirth, the effects of the MEST universe (MEST here stands for matter, energy, space, and time) on the thetan become stronger.

It's easy to see the narcissism that underlies the teachings of Scientology. It's easy to see the narcissism of these teachings because this particular body of teachings is so new that most of us haven't yet overlaid the raw narcissism of it with layers and layers of "divine authority" derived from "ancient tradition." We're still willing to look the teachings in the eye and see them for what they really are.

What they really are is an attempt to rupture the relationship between individuals and God.

It's just so damned inconvenient, from the narcissist's point of view, to have a God who's already here and already acting for our benefit. The narcissist can't tolerate the idea that he -- a human being -- isn't the smartest, fastest, strongest being in Creation. So, to assuage his intolerably monstrous ego, he invents an entire cosmogony where he is God and he is on a brave and bold quest to reclaim his rightful power as God. Or Buddha. Or Thetan.

By looking at the origins of Scientology -- and specifically at the psychological issues that have driven the founders and chief promoters of this new cult -- we can see the pattern of narcissistic behaviours for ourselves. We can then use our observations to help us decide which aspects of our own spiritual journeys are holding us back as we try to heal our relationship with God.

In order to progress on the Spiral Path of faith, science, wonder, and relationship with God, you must start with the assumption that it's good enough for you to be a child of God, rather than trying to become God the Mother and God the Father themselves.

Being a child of God entitles you to all the benefits of wearing the coat of many colours God gives to all God's children. It entitles you to be fully yourself, without judgment, abuse, or psychological violence. It entitles you to live passionately according to the needs of both the Heart and the Mind. It entitles you to view your human lifetime as a richly rewarding, positive experience instead of a punitive, degrading, sin-filled, mud-wrestling match. It entitles you to blend both Materialist laws and non-Materialist laws in your daily life. It entitles you to be honest with yourself about how much you really want and need to be in relationship with God.

Gardens are one way to experience the coat of many colours while you're here on Planet Earth. God invites you to help with planting and watering and weeding a garden to create a place of peace, beauty, and healing for others to enjoy (including creatures great and small). But God doesn't expect you to be in charge of the design of every living organism in the vast universe we live in. That's God's job!  Enjoy the gardens of Earth while you're here and rejoice in the ways you can help create and sustain such beauty. It may not be a much of a contribution as far as a spiritual narcissist is concerned, but it's important as far as God and your angels and your own soul are concerned.  Great blessings come in small packages!

It's no fun at all believing you're required to be responsible for everything in Creation. Fortunately, God doesn't expect you to be God.

If you can manage to embrace the first stanza of the Serenity Prayer and live in basic accordance with the tenets of the Twelve Step Program, you'll be doing very well as far as your angels -- and your God -- are concerned.

Best of luck to you!

LSP28: The Burden of Perfection

Ever notice that any good idea, when taken to extremes, can become a bad idea?

From my perspective, the biggest problem with all theories grown from apophatic roots is the burden placed on people to be perfect.

Nobody is perfect, and nobody should be expected by their spiritual leaders to take on the level of personal responsibility required in an apophatic belief system.

Apophatic belief systems are found in every culture and in every major world religion.  Strict monastic lifestyles, as cultivated within Theravada Buddhism and Roman Catholicism, are two examples of this way of life.  But they're not the only examples.  In fact, atheism brings to bear on its adherents the same extreme burden of perfection found within certain religious sects.  This is because all apophatic belief systems (whether theistic, non-theistic, or atheistic) share one major thing in common: an absolute hatred of the humbleness/courage/forgiveness paradigm preached by spiritual teachers such as the Hebrew philosopher Job (author of the Bible's Book of Job) and the Jewish philosopher Jesus (author of the Bible's Kingdom paradigm).

I don't use the word "hatred" lightly.  Apophatic assumptions about consciousness, life, evolution, learning, and relationships are completely different from the assumptions made by cataphatic thinkers.  Apophatics consider Kingdom teachings an affront to their intellectual authority and prowess.

Apophatic beliefs are based on the preeminence of the human mind - on a belief in the ability of the human mind to dramatically alter the universe.  Apophatic teachings, drawing on the natural authority they see in the Materialist laws of cause and effect, are highly anthropocentric.  They see human beings as a group "set apart" by their special mental powers to play a supremely important role in Creation (or on plain ol' Planet Earth, if you're an atheist).  It follows from this (say the apophatics) that human beings have a huge responsibility to themselves and to the planet to scrupulously follow every law they can think of.  Anything short of perfection is considered a failure.  It's therefore not only acceptable but completely necessary to find the flaws in everything you see around you so you can "fix" them.  Inevitably, this leads to the idea that if you always exert the right effort at the right time in the right way (etc., etc.) you - personally - can change the whole world.

Not the world inside you, or the part of the world you're connected to, or the people you know, or the garden you're digging, or the school you're building  . . . but the whoooooole wooooooorld.  And if you fall short of the ultimate goal of achieving full liberation from the cycle of rebirth dictated by the laws of Karma (with the side benefit of using your newfound universal freedom/godhead to help others on Planet Earth escape their suffering), well, then, you're just an awful, unworthy failure, aren't you?  You shoulda tried harder!

So apophatic thinkers are always trying harder, always striving for perfection, always obsessively worshiping.  Or working.  Or counting.  Always rating themselves in comparison to other people.  Always judging others "who aren't trying hard enough."  Always holding grudges, holding onto anger, holding onto denial.  Always refusing to love.  Always refusing to accept.

Meanwhile, cataphatic teachings (as represented by the Kingdom teachings of Jesus) maintain that our universe is guided by both Materialist and non-Materialist laws of science (not just Materialist laws) so it's pretty hard for the limited human mind to figure everything out by itself.  We're responsible for the personal choices we make.  Our inner self - the part each of us is responsible for - is the Kingdom Jesus refers to.  But we're not responsible for the whole universe and everything in it.  It's okay for us to have limits and it's okay for us to lean on others and on God.  It's okay for us to trust God.

It would be easy to say the apophatic thinker sees the glass as half empty and the cataphatic thinker sees it as half full.  But it's much more than that.  It's more along the lines of this: the apophatic thinker sees himself as a very big glass in a very small pond, whereas the cataphatic thinker sees himself as a very small glass in a very big pond.

The apophatic thinker sees himself as a very big glass in a very small pond - but he also thinks he's not yet a big enough glass.  He wants to be so big and so important in the world pond that his glass will be completely full - so full it will allow him to become "one substance" with the Oneness he calls Source (or Money or Success).  He thinks he's so clever and so important in the grand scheme of things that the pond will somehow dry up if he doesn't jump right in there to save it (and everybody in it) by using his "one substance."  He has a Saviour complex.

Perfect Imperfection (c) JAT 2014

Meanwhile, the cataphatic thinker, who sees himself as a very small glass in a very big pond, looks around the pool filled with all manner of life and says, "Hey, this is a beautiful place.  I see a muddy patch over there where I can hang out with my buddies and have some fun.  No one will mind.  It's a big pond, and there's room for everybody.  I'll learn what I can from everyone else.  I'll build something, create something, and share something. Then I'll pick up my garbage, go home, and be grateful for the good (but imperfect) day I've had.  Cool!"

Apophatics don't do cool.

Addendum January 5, 2018:  Interesting research has just been published about the rise of three types of perfectionism among millennials: "Students are feeling more pressure than ever to be perfectionists" by reporter Vanessa Hrvati. According to the article, Dr. Thomas Curran, one of the authors of the scientific study, "described the need to be perfect as a 'hidden epidemic' that could potentially underpin many of the mental health issues students face, ranging from anxiety to depression."


For Further Reflection:

Would it help you to know that, from God's point of view, there's no such thing as a perfect human being?

When God says it's okay for you to be born as a human being on Planet Earth, it's not because God has plans for you to become more "perfect." It's because God has plans for you to know yourself better, to know your fellow angels better, and to know Mother Father God better. But "knowing" yourself is a lot different than matching yourself to a "template of perfection" for an ideal human being. In fact, knowing more about yourself is the very opposite of trying to become an ideal human being. Knowing yourself is essential to the Humbleness paradigm of boundaries and relationships; forcing yourself to be squeezed into the teeny-tiny box of perfectionism means you're not allowed to be who you really are.

Part of the problem is that although we're very different from each other as persons-of-soul (that is, as children of God), God has given all of us very similar biological bodies as human beings. So it's hard for us to accept that it's okay for us to be similar on the outside but radically different from each other on the inside - different in terms of our temperaments, interests, abilities, learning styles, relationship styles, and so on.

If we were to wander around one of the multitudinous ecosystems of Planet Earth, we would see at a glance an abundance of species all around us. We'd notice that no two species are exactly alike. We wouldn't question the reality that each species has unique talents and attributes, talents we cherish and are continually amazed by. (How many people have looked at a hawk and not envied its ability to ride the unseen thermals of the sky?) Further, we'd quickly observe that within each species there are many individual variations of colouring, temperament, adaptability, leadership ability, and longevity. Abundance of talent is what we expect when we look at God's creatures here on Earth. It's supposed to be that way. And we have no trouble accepting that a hawk can't be a hare. Or vice versa.

Except when we look at ourselves. Many of us just can't seem to get past the idea that our outsides are 90% of our story. We reason that if 90% of a hawk's story is in its body, and if 90% of a hare's story is in its body, then 90% of a human's story must also be in its body. This, after all, is the inevitable conclusion that derives from atheistic theories such as natural selection and non-theistic evolution.

Fundamental to atheistic cosmogonies about life on Planet Earth is the belief - nay, the certainty - that there is no soul, so obviously there can be no soul to shape the inner landscape of each unique human being. From this assumption flows the implicit logic that human beings are really just a bunch of interchangeable building blocks. And from this comes the inescapable "fact" that these building blocks must be perfectible if only we can acquire the right knowledge.

Eat this food. Take this pill. Do this exercise. Obey this commandment. Be a prisoner of the DNA you were born with. Don't you dare have the temerity to believe your inner self is a whole lot bigger than your DNA says you are. Lower the bar for yourself. Lower the bar for your children and your neighbours. Be the least you can be. But throw yourself on the mercy of the wise leaders who can tell you how to perfect yourself, and maybe - just maybe - you'll be lucky enough to have a few fleeting moments of Happiness.

When Michelangelo was lying on the scaffolding of the Sistine Chapel so he could paint its famous ceiling, I doubt very much he was thinking about his perfect pasta intake or how many steps he'd walked that day.

And I doubt very much that any other human being could have told the story Michelangelo told in the precise and lasting way he told it.

He was one of a kind, a child of God with a unique inner story and a unique way of sharing it.

As all of us are when we allow ourselves to be who we really are.

LSP26: Materialism, Buddhism, and Karma

Sometime in the 6th century BCE, in a region now known as Nepal, a man was born who is credited as being the Awakened One.  Siddhartha Gautama -- known to us as the Buddha -- crafted an entirely new philosophical system in response to the problems he saw in Hinduism (as it existed then).  His teachings are currently of great interest to spiritual seekers in the West who are tired of the turmoil created by our cultural norms.

From the earliest years of the movement, the Buddha's core teachings looked very different on the surface compared to Hinduism's ritual-bound, authoritarian teachings. Therein lay Buddhism's appeal. Unlike the highly supernatural Hindu teachings, the earliest Buddhist teachings were empirical, scientific, pragmatic, therapeutic, psychological, egalitarian, and directed to individuals.*  The Buddha's original religion (or way of life) was therefore long on intense self-effort, short on metaphysical speculation, devoid of authority, devoid of ritual, devoid of tradition, and devoid of the supernatural.**

Unfortunately, because the Buddha continued to uphold the laws of Karma -- not only using Karma as the main root system for his philosophy but pushing the logical implications of Karma to its ultimate purified form -- the religion he founded is also devoid of relationship with God.

Technically, Buddhism is referred to as a non-theistic religion or philosophy because there's no room in it for a personal God.  This isn't to say that God doesn't exist -- just that a personal God isn't needed. Or wanted.

This is a strong statement, so before I say anything else, I want to emphasize that my comments in this post refer only of those narcissistic individuals (some of whom I've had extremely unpleasant dealings with) who use the core teachings of Buddhism for their own selfish purposes and gain.  Most Buddhists, I'm sure, try not to misuse the teachings -- just as most Pauline Christians try to rise above the low bar set by the Church for their personal conduct.

In the Buddha's earliest teachings, which are intensely transpersonal in the way that all apophatic teachings claim to transcend the self, a personal God is discarded and replaced with the numinous cloud of Knowing/Unknowing that many people now call Source or Godhead.  It's this unknowable cloud of universal law that lies behind the theories of Karma in the East and Wisdom in the West.

As with all major world religions, Buddhism isn't a single religious entity, but is instead an umbrella term for various schools and branches that have diverged from the earliest teachings. A common belief in the doctrine of Karma is one of the uniting threads among diverse forms of Buddhism. This statue fragment of the Buddha is from the Gandharan art collection of the Royal Ontario Museum. Photo credit JAT 2017.

According to Karma's teachers, the cloud's Materialist laws of cause and effect (i.e. Karma) are THE laws you must obey -- no two ways around it.  Although it's a bummer to be stuck with these laws, the good news is this: he who can read the cosmic laws encoded in the cloud gains great power -- infinite power, actually.  He who can read the cosmic laws and control them no longer needs a relationship with God because he has, in a sense, become God.

In other words, once you have law, who needs love?

Bear in mind an important point here, a point which is often overlooked: it's the people who claim to have achieved nirvana who get to tell the rest of us what the laws are.  It's the normal, regular, everyday people -- not the universe or the planet or the laws of non-Materialist science -- that are dictating these Karmic laws to others from the inner reaches of their own human minds (minds which are, after all, still human, though you wouldn't know it to listen to them).  And guess what?  They don't have to explain themselves, because explaining and engaging in direct debate is for ignorant minds.  We're simply expected to trust that anicca (impermanence), dukkha (suffering), and anatta (absence of a permanent personality or soul) tell us everything we need to know about life on Planet Earth -- because the Buddhist philosophers have told us so.  (When they see this pattern of top-down authority in Christianity, we call it revelation.)

In its purest, earliest form, the teachings of Buddhism are no different than the teachings of other apophatic mystical traditions that seek to depose God as a person (actually, two people) and elevate the human mind to a position of authority it doesn't deserve.  It's the ultimate form of narcissism.

Ironic, yes?


* Huston Smith, The World's Religions (New York: HarperCollins, 1958 and 1991), page 98.
** Huston Smith, The World's Religions, pages 94-97.


For Further Reflection:

Sometimes, when we've been born and raised with certain beliefs about how the Universe works, we can discover it's no easy thing to set aside those beliefs even when we're sure they're wrong.

A few researchers in recent years have been looking for evidence in the human brain for "the God Spot" or "the God Code" to explain why most people seem to want and need religion in their lives. Some researchers have noticed there's a sort of "God-shaped conceptual space" in the brain that tends to fill up with non-Materialist beliefs. But it's really more complicated than this. From the moment of birth, the biological brain starts looking for evidence for two things: (1) how the 3D Universe works and (2) how the self fits into this strange new 3D Universe.

Bear in mind that, for the soul, the 3D Universe of baryonic matter (i.e. atoms and molecules that respond to the laws of classical physics) are not the norm. Souls (angelic consciousness) are born into the non-baryonic quantum world that governs 95% of all energy in Creation, a world where Divine Love and Divine Forgiveness and non-locality and quantum weirdness are normal parts of everyday life. Souls are used to weirdness. So when we choose to incarnate, we hit the ground running (so to speak) as we try to take in all the sights and sounds and gravitational laws that apply to 3D life on Planet Earth.

In our early years, we rely heavily on our own built-in observational skills as little scientists-in-human-form. We're constantly exploring the laws of classical physics, testing and retesting (yes, the peas still fall when I threw them!), and filling up our brains with all sorts of important data sets. Soon we start to ask more advanced questions about the laws of classical physics, and at this point we turn to wisdom of the adults around us. We absorb what they tell us directly about how the Universe works. We also absorb what they tell us indirectly through their own choices and their own responses to the world around them. We use the wisdom of adults as a sort of macro to filter and sort our understanding about the laws of the Universe. And this is a sensible thing for us to do because there's so much to learn and process.

When the adults around us live and breathe a highly specific cosmogony -- for example, Young Earth Creationism in Christianity, or Karma in Buddhism -- our growing brains start to accept this cosmogony not as a working theory but as an actual scientific truth. Based on our acceptance of cosmogony as truth, we then build an internal moral code that's consistent with our cosmogony. We do this because we want our inner selves -- our inner laws and choices -- to be in harmony with the laws that govern all Creation. This is the only approach to life that makes sense, because even when we're very young, we sense that we're not alone in Creation, that our lives are fully interdependent with the forces that govern all Creation. So we want to flow with the forces as we understand them, not against them.

You can imagine, therefore, how the biological brain will shape itself in childhood and early adulthood if the laws of Karma are upheld as scientific truth (even though the laws of Karma are pure conjecture). Planet Earth will, of necessity, look like a very grim place to you, and your lot in life will seem like a scientific reality that you must deserve and can't do anything about unless you commit to the path of letting go of the one thing that's truly yours: yourself.

The System 2 networks of the brain, scarily enough, see the logic in this path. But the System 1 networks, which hold within them the seeds for the path of love and forgiveness and meaning and empathy and relationship with God, will fight and fight against this ghastly "truth" until their biological networks are finally broken apart through constant suppression and denial.

Eventually, the brain's networks, so overgrown with the tenacious kudzu-like roots of Karma, can only see the world as proof of the theory itself. It's a vicious cycle, one that reinforces the theory of cyclical time and further damages the brain's ability to objectively assess religious doctrines.

One final note: You might think that a theory that's been around for a long time is surely correct simply because of its longevity. But many spiritual and religious theories have existed for centuries, even millennia, before being discarded. So longevity is in itself no proof of anything. In the past few centuries, Christianity has been undergoing a process of sorting and winnowing, and now many Christians are proud to say they don't accept ancient doctrines such as patriarchy and infallibility. We're constantly being called upon as children of God to be honest with ourselves about doctrines that create and sustain harm.

I personally believe that no religion anywhere on Planet Earth is -- or should be -- exempt from this constant process of reexamination, healing, and redemption. This is how we make the world a better place, one choice at a time. But we can't do it without Humbleness.

LSP25: What About Karma? Does It Fit With Divine Love?

Is it okay for a person on the Spiral Path to believe in Karma?  Is it okay for a person who believes in Divine Love to believe in Karma?

No, it's not okay.  It's not okay because Divine Love and Karma are mutually exclusive theories about Creation.  If you believe in Divine Love, there's no room for Karma.  Meanwhile, if you believe in Karma, there's no room for Divine Love.

October Maples (c) JAT 2014

Simply put, you have to choose.  You have to choose what kind of spiritual tree you want to grow in your garden of life.*  You can start with roots founded in Divine Love, or you can start with roots founded in Karma.  The choice is up to you, because you have free will.  But you need to know that the tree you grow from Divine Love will look very different in 20 years compared to the tree grown from Karma.  Both start from small, vulnerable seeds, which don't look much different from each other in the beginning (as both uphold the importance of moral precepts).  But tend them and feed them year after year and you'll eventually see the differences. 

Where will you see the differences?  You'll see them in the thoughts, feelings, actions, and health issues of your very own brain.  This is because the biological brain is designed to alter its wiring based on the major decisions you make.  If you make a decision to grow the Karma tree in your life, your brain will gradually rewire itself to reflect this decision.  In other words, the spiritual decisions you make will have a huge impact on how your brain works.

There are several factors that make the Karma tree seem very appealing, especially in the early stages of a spiritual journey:

1.  The Karma tree is based on the theory that the entire universe is moral, and that moral choices can't be separated from other kinds of choices.

2.  The moral laws of Karma are absolute.   Absolute rights and absolute wrongs exist, both of which have logical, predictable consequences for each soul.  Therefore, although human beings always have free will, there's really no chance or accident in the world because universal laws of cause & effect will eventually catch up with you (if not now, then in your next life).

3.  Karma is a highly logical, law-based philosophical system that makes perfect sense to logical, law-based human minds.  It demands that each person be 100% responsible for all his or her choices. 

4.  Karma teaches that Justice is absolute, totally fair, and inevitable.

5.  Karma places great power in the hands of human beings.  It's the power to fully comprehend cosmic laws and use those laws to create one's own future.  The universe must bend to human will once we humans grasp its laws.

6.  Karma teaches that the world we live in here (i.e. 3D Planet Earth) can't ever be perfected because its mix of good and evil is an intentional "training ground" for souls. This can never change because the planet's purpose is to be a "middle world" between the heavens above and the hells below.  Social progress is therefore a delusion.

7.  Karma starts with a cyclical understanding of Time.

These seven factors are the key philosophical roots that together create the theory of Karma.  Although these roots sound very logical and fair to most human minds, the big problem is this: these factors, when blended together, create the perfect excuse to avoid the hard work of opening your heart to Divine Love.

Opening your heart to Divine Love takes courage, humbleness, and forgiveness.  This is what Jesus' Kingdom teachings were all about -- opening your heart to Divine Love by finding and using your own courage, humbleness, and ability to forgive.  Courage, humbleness, and forgiveness aren't based in the logical, 3D mind; they're based in the emotional centres of the brain and soul -- the inner place we call the Heart.

The Heart has its own set of rules, but it's not the same set of rules the Mind uses (nor even, for that matter, the same set of rules the body uses).  The Heart sees many colours, tints, and tones where the Mind sees only black and white.

There's nothing in Jesus' understanding of God, Divine Love, or the soul that resembles the roots of the Karma tree.  Jesus was trying to show people how to grow something very different from the Karma tree, something that's built on the needs of the heart AND the mind AND the body AND the soul -- not just the needs of the mind. (Not that you'd know it after 2,000 years of Church teachings based on Paul's thorny, ugly, spiky version of the spiritual tree . . .)

Divine Love isn't a set of transpersonal laws based on pure Mind.  Divine Love is an emotional choice.  It's a choice made by God the Mother and God the Father together.  Because it's a choice -- because it's their choice -- you have absolutely no control over it.  You can't force God to mete out justice the way you see fit.  You can't force God to agree that your neighbour got what he deserved.  You can't force God to say it's okay for you to stop working toward social progress.  You can't force God to agree with the religious choices you make in your life.  You can't force God to agree with your personal assessment of your own cleverness.

You're not nearly as smart as the theory of Karma tells you.  And God isn't nearly as stupid.


* Please see "It's the Roots, Not the Fruits, That Matter" from January 29, 2014.


For Further Reflection:

It should be obvious that if you want to build a relationship with God, you need to sift and sort through the doctrines you hold, then set aside the beliefs that are blocking your relationship skills. There's no point planting seeds for the Tree of Life if you're going to salt the ground around it with toxic beliefs that constantly kill off the tender shoots of new relationship. A small number of religious and philosophical doctrines are so poisonous to your relationship with God that if you insist on hanging onto them, you'll find yourself struck, frustrated, never making progress. One of the most pernicious of these anti-relationship doctrines is the theory of Karma.

Since the late 1800's, Christianity has gradually been exposed to, and influenced by, various Eastern teachings that view Karma as the quintessential philosophical underpinning for morality, justice, personal enlightenment, and piety. Many Christians have been understandably eager to explore the goals and practices of these Eastern traditions in the hope of enriching their own experience of God's presence. It's somewhat difficult, however, to achieve this enrichment if you naively embrace the Materialist cause-and-effect laws of Karma. Karma is, after all, a set of doctrines which, at its very core, shows nothing but contempt for God.

It's no accident that Buddhism is technically a non-theistic religion. The whole point of the Buddha's original teachings was to demonstrate that an efficient system of algorithms could take human beings steadily closer to the Laws of Creation without any need whatsoever for a personal God. It's a brilliant system of logic, to be sure. But, as with any system that relies completely on algorithms, there's no room for the mystery of the Tree of Life. This may explain why many forms of Buddhism have evolved over the centuries to reintroduce the creativity, stories, family traditions, and art that were of necessity snuffed out by the Four Noble Truths.

In the core teachings of Buddhism, algorithms rule. In the teachings of Jesus, differential calculus is the key.

Algorithms have an unfortunate tendency to spawn cultural norms that are rigid, hierarchical, patriarchal, and dependent on Materialist cause-and-effect to explain why some people should be considered superior to others. Christianity, while demonstrating these same harsh aspects many times during its history (not to its credit), has repeatedly been subject to countervailing "eruptions" of horizontal inclusiveness and respect for women and children. These periodic "eruptions" of Divine Love have been made possible because Christianity has built-in doctrines that deal with flow rates; that is, doctrines that encourage change and learning and healing and experiences of redemption over time -- time that's understood as linear, not cyclical (which makes a huge difference as far as the biological brain is concerned).

Not every Christian has accepted that humbleness is a necessary aspect of relationship with God, but some have. Many Jews have seen the calculus of faith, as well. It's the willingness to be flexible in all our relationships (including our relationship with God) that lets us bend and grow with the wonders of the Tree of Life.

As I said above, if you're sure the Tree of Karma is right for you, than by all means stick with it. But don't expect it to bear the same fruit as the Tree of Life. And don't pretend the Tree of Karma is a viable path to feeling God's presence in your life when Karma's very purpose is to justify your personal quest to become a self-contained god yourself.

You can either have a path that leads you to Mother Father God or a path that leads you to self-sanctification/self-divination. But you can't have both.

Full disclosure: you have the right to choose whatever you like; but your angels have the right to have an opinion on your choices. So if you keep insisting you're a long lost spark of the Divine who's desperately trying to reclaim your rightful godhood (Gnosticism), or keep proclaiming you're trying to escape from suffering through self-transcendence/no-self (Buddhism), you can expect to get some feedback from your guardian angels about your arrogance and narcissism and lack of respect for God's wisdom.

They'll still love you and forgive you, though.

LSP12: Not Your Usual Valentine Song: Why We're Here on Planet Earth

Okay.  o if God is so loving and we, as souls, are so loving, and everything in the universe is so galldarned loving, then why the heck are any of us here?

Why not just jump to the good part -- Heaven, that is -- and skip all this crazy, frustrating, painful, human stuff?

Every major world religion (past and present) has tried to answer this question. In fact, there wouldn't be any religions without this question. Faith* asks the question with an open heart. Religion's job has always been not to answer the question but to control the answer, to control the theory which decides what other people can observe.

This is not to say that religious people don't have faith or can't have faith. Many have great faith in a loving God. But many more have no faith in themselves or each other because they've been taught by their religious leaders to believe in their own inherent sinfulness or karmic imperfection. (Take your pick -- both boil down to a belief in Materialist laws of cause and effect.)

What if all these religions are wrong? What if there is no inherent sinfulness and no karmic imperfection? What if the goal is not to escape our sinfulness through grace or to escape the cycle of rebirth through sheer willpower? What if the goal for human beings has nothing whatsoever to do with saving ourselves so we can get to Heaven or to a state of Nirvana?**

What if we're here on Planet Earth for an entirely different reason? A simple reason. A loving reason. Say . . . so we can experience a number of complicated things about God's Heart that some of us just can't seem to understand without "walking a mile in God's shoes."

Maybe we're here as human beings because, as souls, we're so determined and so loving and so trusting and so courageous that nothing -- not even the sure knowledge of our temporary suffering and anguish and loneliness -- can stop us from wanting (as souls) to know more about who God the Mother and God the Father really are as people.

This clock, made of ivory, gilded copper, brass, and enamel, is called "The Twelve States of the Soul," and was made by German clockmaker  Johan Georg Gusderman of Kaemten in about 1680. It's part of the Kenneth Thomson collection at the Art Gallery of Ontario. Photo credit JAT 2018.

From what I've just said, you'd have to conclude that if we want to know (as souls) what it feels like to walk a mile in suffering and anguish and loneliness, then this must mean . . . hmmm, now here's a thought you won't be hearing in church anytime soon . . . this must mean that once upon a time (long, long ago and far, far away) there was no Divine Love and existence was a real bitch until God the Mother and God the Father found redemption in each other.

As the song says, it takes two.

Happy Valentine's Day, everyone.


*(I define faith as a relationship with God that endures in the absence of sacred texts.)

**(Please bear in mind that I'm simplifying on purpose.)


For Further Reflection:

People love to know about their human ancestry. For reasons we can't describe, we're endlessly fascinated by our family trees and family histories. These days, it's popular to add a DNA analysis to the confusing piles of unnamed photos and undated letters we find in old trunks in the basement. Sharing historical information has recently become a way of bringing people closer, but it hasn't always been this way.

It used to be, in centuries past, that families lived in the same small region for many generations, so you didn't have to go much further than the local graveyard or the local parish register to learn more about your ancestors. You could also go to the pub or the sewing circle, where you could hear every nasty rumour about everybody's ancestors right back to the time of Adam. Heaven help you if you came from the clan or caste despised by your community for some ancient crime. There was no escaping the power of genealogy to build lives and also ruin them, depending on who your ancestors were. Forgiveness for bloodlines was almost unheard of.

Human culture has taught us to think about family history in some pretty strange ways that have nothing to do with learning how to love your God or yourself or your neighbour. We don't like to acknowledge it, but, over time, all of our most dysfunctional beliefs about families and family history have mutated into religious doctrines. We do this -- we drag our flawed theories about family into the history of our relationship with God -- because so many of us like the idea of having power over the people closest to us.

In order to get the family power we want, we take our understanding of God the Mother and God the Father and we beat the crap out of it. We take God's image and cut out all the parts that might interfere with our own authority. We then take the parts that are left (such as God's immeasurably vast talents) and rearrange them into a new portrait of the Divine that "proves" such religious theories as the human right to be right; human exceptionalism; human hierarchies of salvation; and monism (the quest to dissolve all humans into a single soup of Oneness).

We then use these theories to justify our treatment of God, our families, our communities, and our planet.

Your angels, however, are having none of it.

The story you've been told about God is in all likelihood one of the many cut-and-paste jobs that exist in today's religious and spiritual circles. (In some circles, God's image has been cut into such tiny pieces that nothing meaningful is left.) It's up to you, then, (with the help of your angels) to find the courage to open your eyes and ears and heart to God so you can rebuild a healthy, mature, loving image of your Divine Parents.

Deep within your core self, in the places of yearning you so rarely listen to except when your dreams overtake you, you're absolutely desperate to know more about your angelic history and more about your Mother and Father's personal journey of redemption, hope, healing, and faith.

Don't be surprised if your journey forward on the Spiral Path sometimes feels like a journey backwards.

There's an important angelic reason for this.

LSP9: The Cosmic Web of non-Materialism

Those who reject the idea of a loving, personal God because of the "irrational beliefs" of religion are often shocked to learn that all major world religions in the world today are founded on Materialist science.

Materialism is a belief system about the world -- a major root system -- that throws all its eggs into one basket: the Law of Cause and Effect. In the Materialist world view (whether it's the belief system of a classical physicist, such as Isaac Newton, or the belief system of a Christian theologian, such as Thomas Aquinas) the universe is understood to be built upon a series of unbreakable laws. Break one of these carefully documented laws and the consequences will be swift and harsh.

The philosophy of Karma, which underlies Buddhism and much of Hinduism, is a pure Materialist belief system. Within Christianity and Judaism, the belief in Covenant -- reliance on any sort of "revealed" contract between God and human beings -- is also a pure Materialist belief system.  You can dress up these Cause and Effect beliefs all you want (with Christian grace being a particularly successful form of tree decoration), but, in the end, what you have in all these cases is a philosophy that starts with the assumption that God is stupid.

God is not stupid. And God is not just a bunch of semi-conglomerated universal laws floating around as a big cloud of nothingness, waiting desperately for you -- frail human being that you are -- to figure out how to escape the Materialist laws of Planet Earth and return to your true place as a  . . . as a . . . no-self who is pure Mind. Or pure Truth. Or pure something, anyway, except for the one thing everyone agrees you won't be allowed to be once you're reunited with the Absolute Reality -- which is yourself.

Because you (and I say this facetiously, of course), you, who are a child of God, could not possibly be good enough for God. Because God is so stupid that God only brings inferior, corrupt souls into existence who must struggle and suffer and sin and err and be full of repentance and humility and worship before at last seeing that they themselves are "pure nothing" and only God "IS." So enjoy your suffering while you're here on Planet Earth, because at least you're "you" while you're here! Don't expect to be "you" once you're outta here, 'cause that's a belief system for the weak and stupid who haven't achieved enlightenment!

There's another way of looking at the universe, of course -- one that's much less depressing.

Let's start, for argument's sake, with the theory that God is really smart (in addition to being really loving). Let's start with the theory that God is probably operating at a speed of thought, love, and action that's on the same scale as Planck's Constant, which is rounded off at h=6.626 X 10-34 J.s (a very, very tiny number). And let's assume that God has also probably noticed that, hmmmm, ohhhh, that non-locality (instantaneous communication between two paired particles) is an operative, verifiable force in the universe. And that God realizes only 4 to 5% of the energy in the universe is the stuff we can easily see and touch and measure (i.e. "baryonic matter").  And that God was probably working within the "cosmic web" of dark matter reported this month long, long before we even noticed it was there. 

Is it too much to ask that we trust in the theory of a God who is much, much smarter than we are? Is it too much to believe that a God who lives in a non-Materialist universe probably operates according to non-Materialist principles of science?

As the Greek myth of Daedalus and Icarus reminds us, it's never a good idea to think you're smarter than God. "Daedalus and Icarus" by Anthony van Dyck, from around 1620, is on display at the Art Gallery of Ontario. Photo credit JAT 2018.

 

 

 

The lives we live as human beings on Planet Earth are only one small part of a very big picture. Let's start with the truth about non-Materialism as one part of the root system for the Tree of Peace we want to grow while we're here. Let's allow the science -- the very vastness of the science -- to show us more about who God really is.

It's in knowing more about who God really is that we grow closer to God. It doesn't matter to God that we can't understand all the science. God knows we have human limitations!  All that matters is that we give God some credit for their incredible brilliance and that we trust they know what they're doing!

Thanks be to our very smart and loving God!


For Further Reflection:

It can be a real struggle for us to let go of our human ideas about justice and punishment and revenge. But learning to see justice through a non-Materialist lens is an important pathway for learning more about God.

We often don't realize how much time we devote to questions of justice. But if you think about the issues that preoccupy you -- and upset you -- you'll see they frequently relate not just to morality but to justice. We wrestle with it constantly. We fill our newspapers and our religious sermons and our websites and our storybooks and our dinnertime conversations with debates about justice. When we believe the legal system has failed us, we turn ourselves into saviours and warriors of justice. When we believe God has failed us, we turn to other systems of belief, such as atheism or scientism or non-theistic philosophies, to justify our actions and reactions.

The authors of the sacred texts that guide all major world religions have always known this, so at the core of all religions you'll find a body of doctrines that speak authoritatively about justice -- how to decide what's right and what's wrong, how to punish the perpetrators of injustice. While these doctrines often look good on paper, it can often be much harder in real life to navigate the complexities of justice.

The Eastern theory of Karma, a theory which has attracted much interest in the West since philosophers reintroduced it here in the late 19th century, has taken the messy guesswork out of justice by preaching a Materialist doctrine of universal cause and effect. Such a doctrine satisfies the all-too-human desire to see people get their just deserts, if not now then in a future lifetime, when they no longer have access to any of the memories of the harm they created. What could be more delicious than knowing your greatest enemy will one day be punished and won't even know exactly why?

The Materialist model of cause-and-effect justice endorsed by countless human beings bears no resemblance to the understanding of justice held by God or God's angels.

If you asked your angels how they would describe justice, they would reply that justice is a process of learning how to use your own free will wisely (i.e. with love and forgiveness) and learning how to fix (or at least help fix) the mistakes you made before you learned how to use your own free will wisely. In other words, angelic justice is akin to what we humans call "personal responsibility."

In the case of someone like Dr. Alexander, who didn't ask to have a near death experience but was swept into one anyway, his angels would have conferred with God the Mother and God the Father about his life choices. Together they would have decided to show him he hadn't been using his free will wisely and could do better.

The last part -- "and could do better" -- is very important. To an angel, a person who's not trying to be his or her best self, who's not using his or her soul talents in the wisest way possible, who's not listening to his or her own soul, is perpetrating an injustice. So it's time for a learning experience, a chance for this person to take greater personal responsibility for his or her own choices.

But each person is unique. Each person has unique strengths and absences-of-strengths, so the definition of what you can do as a human (i.e. what you can take personal responsibility for) and what you can't do as a human (i.e. what you can't take personal responsibility for) is unique to you. This is what sets Divine justice apart from Materialist justice. Divine justice is based on who you really are as a soul.

Your angels will never ask you to do something you can't actually do. It may feel at times as if they've given you more than you can handle, but that's only because they have more faith in you than you do.

LSP6: Why God?

Why God? Why a personal God instead of a transcendent cloud of Oneness from which all of us come and to which all of us return? 

Quite simply, knowing God makes you a better person.

We human beings are funny creatures. When we sit down long enough to notice what we're really thinking and feeling, all sorts of strange emotions bubble up inside us. We want more than anything to feel we belong and to feel we have a purpose in life. We want to feel safe--emotionally and physically safe--and when we're not, we feel frightened and anxious. We long to be surrounded by beauty and peace and kindness and honesty, and when we're forced to deal with selfishness and betrayal and corruption, we're devastated.We want to know others and we want to be known--really, really known and accepted for who we are deep inside. We desperately crave love and trust. We desperately need other people.

Is it wrong for us to feel this way? Are we to blame for our own suffering because we're too attached to certain people and ideals and creature comforts? Are we suffering because of the weight of our emotions and attachments? Or is it possible we're suffering because we haven't been paying enough attention to what we really want and need?

God's love is Beauty. Don't reject it. Rejoice in it! Photo credit JAT 2018.

For a long time now, human beings in all places and in all religious traditions have been trying to answer the problem of suffering by following one of two major paths. (Yes, more paths!) The first major path is the path of spiritual ascent that leads to holiness and perfection (in technical terms, "anagogism"). The second major path is the path of self-dissolution and blurring of boundaries for the purpose of rejoining the cloud of Oneness (called "apophasis"). Both of these paths are paths of abandonment--abandonment of yourself and abandonment of God. Neither path (not even when they're combined, as they often are, in a one-two punch) will help you become a better person--the person you want to be deep in your Heart.

What helps you become a better person is your faith and trust in the "rightness" of needing powerful emotions such as love and safety and deep acceptance in all your relationships. Families (and communities) that embrace the "rightness" of love and safety and deep acceptance are families that are healthy and happy (within the limits of our temporary human lives). Families that focus on achieving holiness and perfection (anagogism), or on beating all emotional needs out of you because emotions aren't "logical" (apophasis) are . . . well, I think you know where I'm going with this.

Knowing God the Mother and God the Father as the people they are means you have a constant source of inspiration in your life for how to be the person you want to be. A person who is patient. And kind. And grounded. And forgiving. And full of empathy for all life (not just caring about the people you know). And courageous. And balanced. And willing to do the right thing. In short, you become once again a person who's in full relationship with all of life, including all the reaches of Creation you'll never see for yourself with your own human eyes.

It all boils down to relationships. Everything that really matters in our lives depends on relationships.  We're hardwired this way. We want and need Divine Love because Divine Love is the ultimate expression of two or more consciousnesses building a relationship of beauty and truth and learning together.

There's no force I've encountered that's anything like the feeling of unconditional love flooding into your heart and mind and bones and gut. This love--which begins within the Hearts of God the Mother and God the Father and within the infinite love they share for each other--this love . . . it's gravity. It's sanity. It's safety. It's trust. It's truth--but not one single truth. It's the truth of everything. It's the truth of you and the truth of me and the truth of all of us. Countless truths, all equally valid, all founded in the reality that we are not One Truth but instead are One Big Family.

All that we most cherish, all that we view as the best expression of ourselves and our communities, depends on our having the courage to love and trust. Forgiveness and transformation and emotional healing all depend on the love and the trust. Once you allow your own heart to be open to these wondrous emotions, you won't be able to stop yourself from letting the rest of it pour in, too.

You won't be able to stop yourself from feeling the gravity of God's love.


For Further Reflection:

Have you ever paid attention to how you feel--how you really feel--when you're treated by your human family if you're just a robot who performs needed tasks? Or a person who's valued for the status you can bring to your family but not for the unique emotions that make you you? Or an invisible slave who's only important in so far as you worship and obey your hierarchical leaders? Do you enjoy being treated in these ways? Do you like being told repeatedly you're unworthy of love? Or does it feel wrong to you in every way?

Being loved by your family is a deep, rich, ongoing set of observations and conversations and memories between people who aren't carbon copies of each other yet who value each other despite their differences. This applies as much to your relationship with God as to your human family.

To seek the path of holiness and perfection is to make the claim that God is only willing to love those who meet a strict and narrow standard of what it means to be beautiful in God's eyes. Such a claim has nothing to do with the way God loves you.

To seek the path of Oneness, where all beings are said to merge into a single Intelligence or Source, is to make the claim that God isn't capable of seeing you and loving you as a unique individual. Furthermore, claims for apophatic Oneness implicitly suggest that you're somehow already a spark of God -- not a child of God, but an actual piece of God's core essence. Have you given any thought to the narcissism involved in such a claim? Have you thought about how it feels from God's perspective when you work your ass off on spiritual practices that claim to give you a godhood that was never yours to begin with?

The human Mind is easily tricked into assuming that God only sees beauty in things that are perfectly perfect.

Fortunately, the Heart that's able to love the imperfectly perfect is a Heart that knows God.

A God who loves you despite the fact that you're very normal and very human and very not God is so much easier to trust.