LSP45: Atheism: You Think You've Escaped the Perils of Religion . . . So Why Isn't Your Life Getting Better?

If the militant atheists are right, and the world's greatest ills can be blamed on religion, then I'm wondering why, at the close of 2015, when more people than ever are rejecting faith and religion and relationship with God for the simple logic of atheism, the world is looking less loving, not more loving?

Could it be that militant atheism, in its religiosity, pure ideology, anger, lack of empathy, and anthropocentric hubris, is simply a new manifestation of the same neurophysiological patterning that leads to fundamentalism of all stripes?

Could it be that militant atheism is a fundamentalist philosophy with characteristics no different, say, than the Middle East movement known as ISIL, which purports to be a religious movement, but is really just a haven for human beings who have damaged their brains and have turned themselves into the Four Horsemen of the Dark Psychological Tetrad (Psychopathy, Narcissism, Sadism, and Machiavellianism)?

Black Beauty T. Rex at the Royal Tyrrell Museum, Drumheller, Alberta. Sure, it's unrealistic and unscientific for Creationists to deny the evidence of the fossil record and claim that Planet Earth is only a few thousand years old. No argument there. But it's also unrealistic and unscientific for militant atheists to deny the evidence of the quantum record, which speaks of weird phenomena such as non-locality, the conscious observer, bosons, fermions, and magnetism, not to mention all the dark matter and dark energy we know almost nothing about. From my perspective, the atheist belief that "dumb luck" led to the evolution of the universe requires a much higher degree of sanctimonious denial than the Creationist position could ever muster. Are we humans really so incredibly amazing that the entire universe evolved just so we could have consciousness with all the rights and privileges of the conscious observer effect? Really? We can't even manage our own bank accounts, let alone act as wise custodians of Planet Earth, so why would the universe evolve to give humankind the unique right to mess with the laws of physics? Photo credit JAT 2015.

The militant atheists I've known (and I've known quite a few) strut and preen in exactly the same harsh way as the spiritual and theological narcissists I've known. They're certain of their rightness, certain of their objective intellect, certain they have all the facts. They're quick to judge and even quicker to punish. They have no empathy (though they rush to claim they live by the laws of empathy's hobbled cousins "compassion" and "mercy"). They rely almost exclusively on the brain's System 2 thinking processes (linear thinking) and pour contempt on the brain's much older and more adaptive System 1 thinking processes (creative and intuitive thinking). They're slow to learn from their mistakes and even slower to admit they made any mistakes in the first place.

Here's something else I've noticed about militant atheists and other fundamentalist philosophers: they're really, really poor at constructing a whole and complete argument. In fact, most of them couldn't argue their way out of a wet paper bag. But don't say this to their face, because they'll explode in vengeful anger -- maybe even treat you to a narcissistic rage reaction -- and they'll make you pay BIG for pointing out they're not really as smart as they think they are.

I take issue with militant atheist philosophies on the following fronts:

• They use restricted data sets and then claim they're using a complete data set. One example is an extreme reliance on Materialist cause-and-effect "Law" without regard or deference to the non-Materialist laws that govern most of the universe. Why is it "wrong" for religious leaders to ignore the actual laws of physics but "right" for atheists to do it when it suits them?
• Another example, taken from the field of religious studies, is a tendency for atheists to conflate many different topics into a single "bugaboo" called religion. Sure, religious fundamentalists conflate stuff all the time -- but why is it okay for atheists to fall back on conflation, over-simplification, literalism, and myth-making of their own?  
• Atheists, in my experience, rely heavily on "revelation" to an extent that rivals the worst abuses of "religious revelation" from major world religions. Under the category of "revelation" you find "proofs" such as "Because I said so," "Because I'm smarter than you," "Because I cherry-picked one small fact from an entire body of knowledge and used it out of context to show how smart I am," and "I just know it's true."
• Atheism has its own set of gods, though it likes to pretend otherwise. Top on the list of atheism's idols are "The Perfect Human Mind," followed closely by scientism; algorithmic solutions; and variations on the "it's not my fault I'm a scumbag because my genes made me do it" argument (which is really no different than the ancient religious argument that says "it's not my fault I'm a scumbag because my demons made me do it").
• Atheism is marked by a petulant, narcissistic refusal to examine the enormous and interconnected questions of scale, time, peripheral vision, alternating current, bonding, probability wave currents, and other non-linear, non-Materialist questions related to God and consciousness and Creation. They use their own personal human limits as proof that God can't actually exist! (as if God has ever understood questions of scale, time, etc. in the way a human brain does!) 

How are these philosophical approaches any different, characterologically speaking, from those used by religious fundamentalists?

How can you expect to become a happier, healthier person who understands patience and love and forgiveness and calmness and flexibility and healing and scale and time and bonding and breadth of knowledge and self-directed morality when you've made the choice to turn yourself into an "iceberg thinker" who refuses to look at anything except the small percentage of data floating above the surface of your System 2 thinking?

And why do you think it's wrong for religious teachers to do this but okay for you to do exactly the same thing?

In my view, militant atheism is hypocrisy in as pure a form as one can get.

______________________________________


March 2, 2016 addendum: A recent piece by Brian Bethune in Macleans highlights some interesting research by social scientists Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog into the unusual percentage of Islamist terrorists who have engineering degrees: http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/why-do-so-many-jihadis-have-engineering-degrees/. Bethune says: "That takes Hertog and Gambetta to the thorny question of “mindsets for extremists.” Different types of people are attracted to different kinds of extremism—engineers mostly on one side, social scientists and humanities grads on the other—and the authors went in search of traits found in both secular and jihadi extremists as well as among engineers. Three stand out among conservatives in general in recent psychological research: disgust (or the felt need to keep one’s environment pure, which can underpin everything from homophobia to xenophobia); the “need for cognitive closure” (a preference for order and certainty that can support authoritarianism); a very high in-group/out-group distinction."

LSP43: Intuition: Learning to See With Your Ears

This morning I was excited to read an article in the current issue of Discover (July/August 2015) that gives a good analogy for what I do as a cataphatic mystic and how I learned to do it. The article is called "Sonic Vision" by Berit Brogaard and Kristian Marlow, and it's excerpted from an upcoming book called The Superhuman Mind: Free the Genius in Your Brain. If you have a subscription to Discover, you can read the article online. Or you can buy the current issue at the newsstand, as I did.

First, though, a quick story that sort of shows how I navigate in my life as a mystic and auditory channeller  (Some of you may recall that I have a strong auditory connection to the soul who once lived as Jesus son of Joseph. Again, I understand this is problematic for some readers and, again, I can't apologize for who I am and what I do.)

To find the Discover article about humans who are blind but have learned to "see" their environment by using sophisticated echolocation skills, I could have kept checking on the Discover website until such an article appeared. But that's not how I live my life. There's only so much time and so much money and so much brain energy. What I do instead of constantly checking websites or subscribing to print magazines is to patiently wait until I get a message from my angels. (Again, I understand this is problematic for some readers, but this is a Christian site, and angels or messengers or persons-of-soul or whatever you want to call them have always been part of the Christian narrative.)

So here's how my discovery of the Discovery article went. First, I realized I needed to go buy a birthday card for a friend. Then it occurred to me I could walk to the plaza instead of driving (though often I drive). And because I walked to the plaza, I passed by the window of a convenience store I hadn't gone into for a long time. And because I walked past the window, I saw their sign for inexpensive cards. (I'm on a tight budget, so I'm always looking for good value). And because I saw the sign, I went in. And because I went in, I discovered the store has been turned into a good magazine shop with titles that don't normally show up in the local drugstore. And because there was a good selection of science magazines, I was able to "feel" the quantum Post-It note that was attached to the Discover issue. 

Don't laugh, but this is how I do all my shopping. It's a process of navigation. It's a process of following quantum threads until they lead me to the quantum Post-It attached to the thing I need. Often the Post-It is attached to something I'd forgotten I needed, but while I'm standing there, with my hand reaching out unerringly toward the shelf, my mind (often the slowest part of me to catch on in these situations) suddenly says, "Oh, yeah, I actually need that!"

At which point I know I've been guided by my incredibly kind and incredibly thoughtful angels.

So anyway  . . . back to the article about echolocation in Discovery. If you have a chance to read it, you'll discover an amazing story about a man named Daniel Kish who lost his sight to retinoblastomas at the age of 13 months and then figured out on his own how to use echolocation to "see with his ears." What's really fascinating (apart from Kish's skill, dedication, and willingness to teach others how to see with their ears!) is that he and others with this skill use the visual processing area in the brain's occipital lobes to generate spatial imagery in their minds. They suss out echoes that most of us can't hear (because we haven't practised hard enough) and these echoes are processed not in the auditory centres of the brain, but in the visual cortex (which does process some sounds). Using comparative informative (between the sounds going out from their clicking tongues and the reflected sounds coming back from nearby objects), the brains of these individuals can construct highly detailed images of what's nearby. It takes proper training and lots of practice and commitment, but it can be done. Sighted people can learn how to echolocate, too, although the phenomenological experience may be different.

The process described in this article is very similar to what I do and how I do it. I don't click with my tongue, of course, but I seem to be able to "click" with an as-yet-to-be-determined type of brainwave. I get "quantum echoes" coming back from nearby persons-of-soul, and these are the echoes my brain processes and turns into words and imagery.

I've known since December 2004, when I had my brain scanned on three different days at the Amen Clinic in California, that the visual cortex of my brain lights up when I'm talking to Jesus, but my auditory cortex isn't really involved in the channelling process. I've also learned after 15 years of daily experience as a cataphatic mystic that when I'm awake and channelling, I don't really "see," yet I get black-and-white visual imagery with words that come in from persons-of-soul, including Jesus. The words always come in clear as a bell -- the same as having a conversation with somebody who's in the room or on the phone with me.

SPECT scan of my brain when I'm talking with Jesus (December 2004). White areas show which brain regions are working hardest (highest oxygen uptake), red areas show the next highest oxygen uptake, and blue areas show average regions that are working but not doing the "heaviest lifting" for the task that's being captured on the scan. SPECT scans capture the brain's function during specific tasks rather than showing simple anatomy. On my channelling scan, some of the high-activity areas are in the cerebellum (which is normal for most people). Other high-activity areas (white and red) are in the thalamus; basal ganglia; posterior cingulate; and the visual cortex at the back of my occipital lobe.

This is a voluntary and learned process -- just as echolocation is a voluntary and learned process. It's also a scientific process. And I had to be trained how to do it properly, just as Kish's students have to be trained. In a few people (such as Kish) it develops instinctively. But most people have to be trained.

Being a cataphatic mystic is a bit different from being a non-sighted person who's learning to echolocate. The process is more complex, and not many people are born with the talent to be full-fledged cataphatic mystics (which is as it should be -- the world only needs a few full-fledged mystics at any given time).

But everybody is born with the brain-talent for intuition (a talent which, on rare occasions, such as during an intense emotional crisis, gets pushed more towards the mystical end of the spectrum, with actual sensory impressions coming through briefly from Spirit). And everybody can learn how to use their intuitive circuitry better than most people do. Some adults have so badly fried their intuitive circuitry that they can longer hear a damn thing from God/Spirit/Source/angels, though the potential is there -- just as the potential to echolocate is there for both sighted and non-sighted people. This potential can be developed with proper training, practice, and commitment. With the proper development of the brain's intuitive circuitry, anyone can strengthen their relationship with God (who's talking to us all the time, whether or not we consciously realize it.)

Here's a great quote from the article:

"Kish's training curriculum differs from tradition by taking an immersive approach intended to activate environmental awareness. It's a tough-love approach with very little hand-holding. He encourages children to explore their home environment for themselves and discourages family members from interfering unless the child otherwise could be harmed."

Welcome to my life! Tough-love is the key. This won't please anyone who goes to a weekend workshop and expects to emerge as an expert in intuition. But if you're willing to do the work, you can gradually learn how to create a map of your relationship with God.

Keep in mind, though, that intuition isn't a "divine gift" that's dropped fully formed into your head because you've asked for it in prayer. It's more like a packet of seeds you have to nurture if you want the stems to grow into a reliable support for your life. 

With practice, intuition helps you know where to walk -- and when -- so you can feel God's presence in your life. And all you need is your own 3D brain.

Addendum Nov. 5, 2017: Two other unusual but very real "frontiers" of neuroscience -- blindsight and tetrachromacy -- also relate to how I use my biological brain to communicate on a quantum level with God/Spirit/Source/angels. You can read more about blindsight and tetrachromacy here:

 BBC - Future - Blindsight: the strangest form of consciousness

 Human Eye Sometimes Sees the Unseeable - Scientific American

 BBC - Future - The women with superhuman vision
 

LSP21: Please Don't Put Mysticism on a Pedestal

Yesterday I got an e-mail from someone who'd seen the SPECT scans I'd posted on my blog and website. She wanted to ask me a couple of questions for an article she's writing. She mentioned she's on a tight deadline, so I decided to phone her. We had a great chat. (I'll call her Susan.)

Along the way, Susan mentioned a Dr. Oz episode from last year that featured Theresa Caputo (the Long Island Medium) and Dr. Daniel Amen, a psychiatrist who is either loved or hated for the brain-scan database he has built using SPECT technology (single photon emission computed tomography).*  Apparently, Dr. Amen had shown the SPECT scan of an unnamed Canadian channeller as part of his discussion on psychic ability. Susan thought I might be the channeller whose brain scan was featured.  (This was a logical assumption, since it was Dr. Amen's clinic who included me in their Normal Brain Study in 2004, rather than in one of their anomalous groups, despite the fact that I'd told the clinic at the very beginning of the intake process about my channelling.)

Anyway, this TV episode was news to me. I don't usually watch Dr. Oz, so I was taken by surprise.

As soon as I got off the phone with Susan, I googled the show. Yup, there it was -- a Dr. Oz show where Dr. Amen was collecting data from Theresa Caputo's brain during a live TV demonstration of mediumship. (On the show, he wasn't using SPECT technology, which requires a massive scanning machine, but was instead measuring Theresa's brainwave frequencies using EEG.)

Hoo boy. 

The good news is that Dr. Amen was not using my brain scans on the Dr. Oz show. The bad news is that Dr. Oz and Dr. Amen, despite their good intentions, are really not helping.

I love the fact that these doctors, along with Dr. Eben Alexander and others, are open to the idea that we live in a non-Materialist quantum universe. I love the questions they're asking. I'm grateful for their input and ideas. I'm grateful to Dr. Amen's group for taking a chance on my brain and showing me what my brain looks like while I'm thinking "normal thoughts" and while I'm thinking "mystical thoughts."

But gosh, guys, I wish you'd all slow down a bit!

I know people are eager and interested in the topic of "extranormal communications" (if I may use that umbrella term for experiences of connection with the Divine), but this is a vast and basically unexplored area of scientific research, so let's not jump the gun. Let's proceed slowly, carefully, and ethically as we try to put scientific labels on the mystical experiences that people have been having for thousands of years.

The thing that fills me with exasperation -- that makes me want to pull my hair out -- is the way solid researchers seem to use different rules as soon as they start to study mysticism. (And neuroscientists aren't the only ones doing this; theologians are doing it, too.)

Please stop doing this, everyone. Please stop putting mystics and mysticism on a pedestal. Please stop assuming you should apply a different set of rules to the study of mysticism because you think mysticism is somehow different from "normal life."

It's not.

Many of history's self-proclaimed mystics have actually been dangerously self-deluded narcissists and psychopaths who want to ruin your relationship with God so they can have the satisfaction of watching you grovel as you beg them for help. This doesn't mean there haven't been genuine mystics along the way. It just means we have to use methodical scientific and historical research to sort the chaff from the wheat. This photo shows a Royal Ontario Museum reconstruction of the Athena Parthenos, who was said to have sprung fully grown from the head of her father Zeus. Doesn't she look nice up there on her pedestal where everybody can worship her? Photo credit JAT 2017.

Almost no one realizes there are multiple types of mysticism.  You cannot lump the brain scans of all self-proclaimed mystics into one single category.

Before you can understand what the brain scans are saying, you first need to know which "language" the mystic is speaking. Is it apophatic? Anagogic? A mix of the two? Or is it cataphatic, with its numerous variants? Is there a history of major mental illness (because that skews the picture as well)? Is there a history of psychotropic drug use? Is there a history of head injury (including concussion)? Is there a history of religious indoctrination in any mainstream or popular religion? Does the mystic dream, and if so, what are the characteristics of these dreams? Does the mystic regularly fast or follow other ascetic practices? Most importantly, is the mystical experience voluntary? If it's not voluntary, there's something seriously wrong inside the brain and this should be investigated.

And that's just the start of my list . . .

The mystical experience is a wonderful doorway into the world of consciousness research because everything inside a mystic's head is somewhat intensified and therefore easier to see in both psychological testing and in neuroscanning. The brain of a brain-healthy mystic is a researcher's dream. But first you have to ask the right questions!

*Addendum August 11, 2023: the hyperlink that used to lead to the 2013 Dr. Oz video no longer works. A recent search turned up two recent back-to-back videos featuring Dr. Amen and Theresa Caputo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WewBXmJl2Lk and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8qj0EPLwnQ.

For Further Reflection:

If you were to ask me to describe the single most important thing I've learned about the universe during thousands of hours of conscious mystical communication with God and my angels, I'd have to say, hands-down, it's the truth that God isn't One -- God is Two. God is both God the Mother and God the Father, who together shape the universe and guide the growth of all their angelic children.

If you were to ask me for the single most important piece of advice I can give you to help you move forward on your spiritual path, it would be this: open both your heart and your mind to the reality that God is two vast beings, not one.

Accepting this reality will be a tremendous struggle for anyone raised in a monotheistic religious tradition (Judaism, Pauline Christianity, Islam, the Baha'i Faith, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, and certain indigenous religions, to name some of the larger monotheistic theologies). All these religions are built on the doctrinal roots of a single God who may or may not be male, but is probably immutable and is definitely timeless, omnipresent, and supreme -- according to the doctrines.

The practical problem with all theories of a single God lies in the nitty gritty reality of Divine Love. Love is, by its very definition, a force, a field, an energy, a truth that connects two different hearts to each other and forms a bridge -- a relationship -- between them.

If there's no second person to build a bridge to, there's no Divine Love. There may be plenty of words, plenty of laws, and plenty of knowledge, but if there's no second Heart, there's no relationship and therefore no Divine Love.

Some writers, including Gnostic and New Thought teachers, have noticed this problem and have tried to get around it by positing a fracturing or splintering of God's Oneness into many little bits of light. These bits fall into 3D places like human bodies and become trapped here until the secret knowledge of escape or ascension or enlightenment is reclaimed. These theories sound good at the beginning, but when you examine them carefully, their many internal inconsistencies always lead to more and more complicated "explanations" for why things are the way they are.

There's no need for these mental gymnastics when you embrace the idea that God is really two. In this belief system (the one that Jesus taught), God the Mother and God the Father are the two Hearts which form the universal model for balance-seeking, boundary-respecting, talent-sharing Divine Love. After that, the concept of male and female energies (different from each other but mutually interdependent) makes 100% sense. Traits such as empathy, forgiveness, altruism, healing, generosity, conscience, and self-sacrifice make 100% sense (because all of them depend on relationship bridges). The causes of human suffering (such as narcissism, psychopathy, and status addiction) stand out for the ways in which they try to smother and suppress the relationship bridges of Divine Love. The good parts of major world religions (the parts that promote healthy relationships) can then be sorted and separated from the destructive parts. 

Suddenly, where once you thought you were a lost, unworthy soul (or a trapped spark of God), you now have permission to accept that you're a beloved child of Divine Parents.

Just as we, as human children, have relationships with our human parents, angelic children have relationships with our Divine Parents. Divine Love is all about nurturing and expanding those wondrous relationships. It's a powerful force, this knowing your own Heart as well as the Hearts of those in your sacred, eternal, Divine Family.

Few religious teachers in the history of human civilization have had the courage to understand God in this radically egalitarian way.

Jesus son of Joseph was one of them.

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.

LSP7: God, Science, and Miracles

I'm pretty tired of reading in my theology texts that nobody can possibly know God so there's no point trying.

What these theologians and philosophers really mean is that nobody they know has successfully met with God by following the spiritual steps dictated by theologians of the past. They assume two things here: (1) the spiritual steps themselves are correct and (2) God can't be known directly by us no matter how hard we try. Too bad, so sad.

From the viewpoint of the scientific method, this approach (this methodology, if you will) falls well short of tenable. If the steps aren't working, then challenge them! Don't just stand there like a blubbering idiot and say you've followed all the steps but they're not working because you're flawed and full of sin. Challenge the steps themselves! Go back and examine the whole procedure with the keen, objective eye of a scientist whose experiment has failed again and again because he's overlooked a flaw in his starting assumptions. Don't assume your starting assumptions are right!

"Astronomy" by Luca Giordano, painted in the mid or late 17th century, not long after Galileo Galilei clashed with the Roman Catholic church about how we should understand the solar system. Galileo, building on the research of earlier scientists, dared to challenge the church's starting assumptions and paid a price for trusting that God is smarter about the laws of physics than any human being. This painting is on display at the Art Gallery of Ontario. Photo credit JAT 2018.

I can say this now with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, but I still remember how hard it was to challenge lifelong assumptions. I have great empathy for anyone trying to do this. I know how painful it can be!  Nonetheless, it has to be done whether you're taking the "hard way" or the "easy way" on the Spiral Path that slowly wends its way towards full relationship with God. Your wanting to challenge old assumptions is a necessary beginning.

Being in relationship with God isn't as difficult as you've been led to believe. Basically, it's the same as being in a full, healthy, mature relationship with anybody who's important to you--your parents, your children, your best friends (though NOT your lover). To have a mature relationship with anyone (a relationship founded on mutual understanding, love, respect, and trust) you first have to be willing to know who the other person is. Who the other person really is. Not the myth of the other person. Or the lies told about him/her. Just the honest truth about who the other person is--his/her talents, strengths, absences of strength, sense of purpose, sense of humour, past history, sources of grief, and sources of infinite joy.

To truly know another person--including God the Mother and God the Father (who are two different people)--you can't simply make stuff up. You can't invent myths and lies about them to suit yourself. You have to listen to them. You have to quietly and respectfully listen to who they really are, to what they're saying directly to you.

Western Christian orthodoxy has tried to co-opt this idea by reverently talking about God's continuing self-revelation, but they've insisted on putting a huge wall around God, and have allowed through only a tiny trickle of truth about who God really is.

One thing I can tell you about God the Mother and God the Father is that both of them love science.  Just love it. They're both big-time science geeks.

Now, I'm not saying they only "do science" and nothing else, because this wouldn't be true. (They're both polymaths, in fact, with talents in every field you can imagine). But if you really want to get to know our blessed, beloved Mother and Father, you have to allow science and faith to be on the same page at the same time. You can't reject science as a valid path to knowing God.

This means you also can't reject the validity of non-Materialism, which is the study of science as it really is, not the study of science as you've been taught.

This is a complicated way of saying that you can be a highly educated person who loves science and still have a scientific basis to believe in miracles.

Really.


For Further Reflection:

How do you get to know someone you've never seen with your own eyes or heard with your own ears? Our first reaction is to say it's impossible. We can't do it. We shouldn't even waste our time trying.

But one of the best parts of being human is our constant need to reach out to know more about people we've never met but whose lives have shaped our own.

We do this every time we pick up a book. Chances are we've never met the author, never seen the author with our own eyes, never heard the author's actual voice. Yet, by the time we finish the book, we have a strong sense of who the author is as a person: his or her interests, talents, quirks, assumptions, prejudices, burning passions, and so on.

We do this every time we walk through a museum or an art gallery or a building with historical roots. We experience the creations of people we've never met, and through their creations we come to know something about their hearts and minds.

We do this every time we softly rock our newborn infants to sleep with gentle cooing and sweet lullabies. We feel the deep power of love, and for the first time we understand something unexpected about our own parents, and their parents before them. We realize that all the words we used before this perfect moment fell short because love isn't words. It's relationships.

Everything around you--everything you learn as a human being on Planet Earth--holds within it multiple layers of observation and communication and memory about who God is and how the universe unfolded. The more you pay attention to the world around you--the more you open your Heart to the feelings that move in earth and sky and water--the more you'll come to know the authors and artists and scientists and parents who are our extraordinary Mother and Father.