LSP42: Gordian Knots in the Faith/Science/Religion Debate

On March 1, 2015, Scientific American blogger John Horgan posted a written reply he'd received from John Lennox on the question of whether religion and science can coexist. John Horgan (whose views are agnostic) had debated the question with John Lennox (whose views are Christian) at the Stevens Institute of Technology. Horgan posted Lennox's follow-up letter, and readers of the blog were then free to comment.

Here is my response, posted in the comment section on April 27, 2015 (with typos now fixed):

___________________________________________________
 

Religion isn't just "one thing." Faith isn't just "one thing." The human brain (where both religion and faith are experienced) isn't just "one thing." Anyone who tries to reduce these incredibly complex questions to simple either-or explanations isn't paying attention to reality. Photo credit JAT 2026.

 

In my experience, the real question is not whether religion and science can coexist, but whether religion and faith can coexist.

@4 Paul Topping wrote, "In my mind, the main 'proof' that convinces me of the atheist point of view is that people have so many different religions with such different explanations. . . . The only reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong and that belief in religion is just something that some people have like blue eyes."

When I read a comment such as this (and there are many these days) I know the individual hasn't taken the time and trouble to use objective research tools to examine key questions about religion -- questions examined with tools such as historicity, source criticism, socio-rhetorical criticism, and cost-benefit analyses from political, economic, social, military, and legal perspectives in the contexts in which the doctrines arose. Most importantly, when superficial assessments of religion are offered, it's quickly clear that all questions about neurophysiology have been shelved.

Shelving questions about neurophysiology isn't reserved for those who claim to espouse the methodology of science. Shelving questions about how and why the human mind works in relationship with the rest of the universe is one of theology's least helpful contributions to humankind, in my opinion. I've read theological arguments so convoluted in their efforts to avoid the question of how and why the human mind works that they make a Gordian knot look like a simple twist tie.

Theology is increasingly understood today as some sort of withering branch of philosophical thought, a deservedly marginalized branch of human thought that has now been proudly replaced by the randomized, double-blind study method, etc.

Those who've studied the history of theological evolution, however, know that all early schools of theological thought (no matter what "religion" they're linked with today) arose from careful study of scientific principles followed by the application of scientific observations to questions of human character, morality, Law (nomos in Greek), justice, disease, healing, mental health, and the pursuit of happiness.

It's not possible from a scientific perspective to reasonably argue that human beings 5,000 years ago (when the roots of today's religions really took hold in the soil of technological advances) had DNA so vastly different from ours that they couldn't use their brains in ways virtually identical to the ways we do. It's not reasonable to argue that they couldn't see for themselves the destructive issues of psychopathy, narcissism, sadism, and machiavellianism without the benefit of today's research and today's DSM-V (which hasn't the courage to include psychopathy in its lauded pages).

Just as we continue to struggle today with these issues, our ancestors took steps to limit the destructive power of certain human choices that spring from Axis II issues. One of the tools each major culture developed was religious doctrine. But religious doctrine wasn't set apart from questions of politics, economics, healing, justice, legal codes, and scientific inquiry. To attack religion as if it has ever been a separate and unnecessary "entity" -- like a dead tree branch that can be lopped off -- is just plain sloppy and lazy from a methodological viewpoint.

Religious doctrines reflect the times and the cultural necessities from which they were born. This is why names and places change from religion to religion, but underlying concerns about destructive human choices don't. Such concerns are universal to the human condition because a psychopath by any other name is still a psychopath. (Members of the Greek pantheon, for instance, certainly seem to be archetypes for the human behaviours we find least desirable: narcissism, fickleness, lust, power-mongering, status addiction, and lack of empathy. Sound like any world leaders you know?)

Religious doctrines, however useful they may have been over the centuries from a political point of view, typically reflect a Materialist cause-and-effect understanding of science, which is quite useful and practical on a day-to-day basis. (Can't argue with classical physics when it comes to everyday usefulness.) The one thing major world religions don't do well, however, is to reflect the needs of FAITH -- a highly influential current of human experience, mostly expressed through System 1 thinking patterns in the brain. System 1 patterns have always paralleled -- and continue to parallel -- the more rigid, linear, Materialist thinking patterns of the human brain's newer System 2 processes.

The experience of faith is the experience of the presence of God in our daily lives. It may or may not be linked to membership in a formal religion.

For me, faith is a relationship with God that endures in the absence of sacred texts. It's an experience that can't be placed within the restrictive boxes of religious doctrinal traditions or texts -- or, for that matter, the restrictive boxes of Materialist cause-and-effect scientific traditions or theories. (Same thing, really.) Faith, far from being just a fanciful belief, is rooted 100% in the most objective scientific realities of the biological brain.

I won't bore you with my own experiences, but if you're interested in opening your heart and mind to what this faith experience might be, I'd recommend the awe-inspiring book Man's Search by Meaning by Dr. Viktor Frankl. Any scientific questions we have about the experience of faith, love, forgiveness, and the human search for meaning must take into account the data collected by Dr. Frankl under some of the most searing and horrendous conditions humankind has ever known: the European Holocaust.

Dr. Frankl, as both participant and scientific observer of the "best" and "worst" in human behaviour, introduced data into the faith/science/religion debate that must, at the very least, be considered from a falsifiability perspective.

It's not enough for any sort of "ism" promoter (whether scientism or religious fundamentalism -- same thing, really) to make lofty claims about the origins of evil and suffering. (Did you know, for instance, that Tertullian's late 2nd century CE doctrine of original sin -- a theory now called Traducianism -- tried to account for human evil on biological grounds?) Ideologues must also account for the data of innate goodness collected by less lofty and less voluble speakers such as the late Dr. Frankl.

Therein lies the really juicy stuff.

LSP29: The Presence of God

This morning, I read an online interview with author Gregg Braden in a New Age magazine called OMTimes. The magazine says Gregg Braden is "internationally known as a pioneer in bridging science, ancient wisdom and the real world!" If you go to Wikipedia to learn more about Gregg Braden, you'll find only a brief entry with a very short introductory paragraph followed by a list of his publications. I find it interesting that Braden's Wikipedia entry has been so heavily redacted.

The interview in OMTimes can't be downloaded, so I spent some time copying quotes from the article (including all the punctuation and capitalization):

"Since 1986 Gregg has explored high mountain villages, remote monasteries, and forgotten texts to merge their timeless secrets with the best science of today. His discoveries are now shared in 34 languages through such paradigm-inspiring books as: The God Code, Deep Truth, and his newest, The Turning Point: Creating Resilience in a Time of Extremes."

Braden believes the world is at a turning point with human beings facing extremes of climate change, economic change, and health change that no human beings have ever dealt with before. He defines "community" as "our answer to our time of extremes," and he defines "resilience" as "our personal ability to thrive in our time of extremes." (This sounds eerily like the apostle Paul's koinonia and hagiasmos: fellowship and holiness.)

He has this to say about the merging of science, ancient wisdom and the real world:

"The wisdom comes from 5,000 years of the spiritual traditions where we apply what we know about the world and about our lives. It's about making life work for us. As a scientist, I was trained and taught that I must follow either one path or the other -- the path of science or the path of spirituality.

In this generation, we have an opportunity, rather than to choose between science and spirituality, to marry the best science of the 21st century with 5,000 years of spiritual wisdom and weave them into a way of knowing that is greater than the science can be all by itself. It's greater than spiritual can be all by itself. And when we do that, we give ourselves the evolutionary edge that our ancestors did not have [emphasis added]. I believe that with this edge we can not only survive but that we will thrive in the new normal that is emerging based upon the extremes that we see in the world right now. The extremes are with us. For our lifetime, probably for our children's lifetime. We have to be honest with ourselves about that."

He goes on to talk about his so-called "new discoveries": "cooperation, mutual aid and connectivity." (Really? These are new?  Has he read the Bible lately?) And he tries to weave everything together by talking about magnetic fields, saying "science is showing us that the magnetic fields, regulated through the human heart, connect all of us":

"Strong magnetic fields are conducive to cooperation and the strongest magnetic field of the human body is the field created by the human heart. The heart based emotions of cooperation, of compassion, appreciation, care, gratitude, are scientifically proven to strengthen the magnetic field of the human heart. These fields embrace a group and even our planet [emphasis added]. This has also been shown through research through Princeton University and The Institute of HeartMath and so it brings us full circle back to our most ancient and cherished traditions when we find a way to communicate through our hearts."

At the conclusion of the article, Braden pays lip service to Love by defining Love as an energy that permeates the entire universe.

Not once, however, does he mention God or the soul.

He talks about 5,000 years of ancient wisdom (without ever describing how damaging some of it can be to the health of the human brain and body). He talks about "the turning point" (which is qualitatively no different than "the End Times" preached by apocalyptic prophets such as the apostle Paul). He talks about the unique and pivotal role of human beings in holding the planet together during a unique and pivotal time. He talks about the monistic Oneness ("connectivity") of all human beings. He talks about how clever we are. He uses Materialist cause & effect science to support his spiritual claims.

But he never talks about God.

5,000 years of ancient wisdom, huh? Well, hmm, I'm kind of wondering why we have to restrict ourselves to a mere 5,000 years of human wisdom when our planet is brimming with the history, stories, science, creativity, exploration, and wisdom of God's wondrous and infinitely present love. This fossil of an ancient turtle is on display at the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller, Alberta. Reflecting on the incredible history of our planet is a good way to keep ourselves humble and not give our mind-based religious texts more credit than they deserve. Photo credit JAT 2015.

Gregg Braden doesn't need to talk about God because Braden is a dyed-in-the-wool apophatic prophet.* Apophatics find the idea of a personal, theistic God highly inconvenient. For apophatics, field theory -- especially the Grand Unified Theory -- is all that's needed to explain who we are and why we're here. If Love can be presented as an energy field that unites us -- or, even better, as a single cosmic field from which all of us originate -- then so much the better. That way no one has to deal with the messy implications of a Divine Love that's based on choice, free will, courage, trust, gratitude, devotion, forgiveness, and NOT Oneness.

My mystical radar always go off when I read that a spiritual teacher has spent 28 years exploring high mountain villages, remote monasteries, and forgotten texts. I always want to know what such a teacher thinks he'll find in an ancient monastery that he can't find by paying full attention to God's messages in his daily life in and around his home.

So let me reiterate: God's presence can be felt anywhere you go in Creation. Anywhere at all. While God's presence has no doubt been felt by a few people who've abandoned their lives for the sake of high mountain villages, remote monasteries, and forgotten texts, none of this ancient wisdom is necessary. God wouldn't do this to you. God wouldn't takes all the clues about how to feel God's presence and then hide them from you in a bunch of ancient texts known only to a few people on the planet. Real life isn't like an Indiana Jones movie. God puts everything out on the table for everybody to see. God hides nothing.

In order to feel God's presence, you don't need to pursue hidden codes or lost languages or ancient magical prayers or occult naming powers. You don't need any of that. You have everything you need right where you are -- in your own heart, mind, body, soul, and strength (the combination of these is what Jesus called "the Kingdom").

Maybe you don't want to hear this, but it's the only reality that's truly consistent with the idea of a loving and forgiving God.

It's great fun to put hidden codes and lost languages in adventure films and books. I myself love that kind of adventure story. But don't make the mistake of thinking God is hiding reality from you by tucking it inside reams of dried-out papyrus or mouldy parchment. 

God reads today's newspaper every morning, just like you.


* Please see the post of November 11, 2014 called "The Burden of Perfection"


For Further Reflection:

If you're sitting really close to your screen, you may want to step back a bit (metaphorically speaking), because I'm about to vent. Loudly.

What is the one thing a narcissist fears?

This isn't a tangential comment. It's central to all the big questions we have as human beings about God and Creation and the soul. It's also central to all the big answers we've been given over the centuries by our religious leaders and spiritual gurus.

A narcissist is someone who cannot control his or her inner impulse to seize the high ground in the battle for "the Right to be Right."

Most people these days are aware that narcissism is a behaviour involving the need to be "special." Very briefly, this specialness manifests in constant attempts to prove that one is better than other people, more deserving of attention and rewards than other people, more worthy of worship than other people. They believe there's one set of rules for themselves and a different set of rules for regular people. They have particular difficulty understanding a morality of boundaries. This is because, from their viewpoint, any kind of interpersonal boundary is an obstacle to the ultimate goal of establishing their own personal purity, piety, and perfection.

While it's become popular to say that behind every narcissist is a person who lacks self-esteem -- and who therefore needs our unconditional love -- this is simply not true. A narcissist is someone who has stopped seeing Creation as a tapestry filled with nuanced colours, and has instead chosen to see Creation as a black-and-white tug of war between Chaos and Order -- not necessarily Evil versus Good (though it usually plays out this way in the end) but equality-of-relationships ("Chaos") versus equality of outcomes ("Order").

The narcissist then uses this dualistic thesis as an excuse to see him/herself as a righteous warrior on the side of Order. No method, no tool, no short-term form of violence is too unethical or unjust to be used for the greater good of restoring Order to society and hence to all Creation. A quick review of dystopian science fiction novels and films (e.g. "The Giver," "Blade Runner 2049") reveals that many careful thinkers have observed this ancient Chaos-versus-Order pattern: in their stories, the bad guys are never the ones who want to preserve or revive humanity's unpredictable, passionate, creative nature; the bad guys are always the ones who are trying to impose a crushing, soul-destroying perfection on everyone else.

For a narcissist, there's no more worthy goal than forcing the world around you to be a perfect mirror-image of your own purity, piety, and perfection. But to pull this one off -- to convince yourself and others that you yourself are the ideal model of humanity to which all others should aspire -- you need one hell of an algorithm to convince your biological brain to ignore all its System 1 input and focus solely on its System 2 input.

This algorithm is a line of reasoning I call "the Right to be Right."

To break this down a bit, "the Right to be Right" is a sequence of either-or statements (as all algorithms are) that are designed to get you to a specific endpoint or goal (in this case, the goal of proving your true worthiness to be admired and worshipped). You start with the intended goal, then you use logic to work out all the different pathways that could lead you to your goal, and, in addition, all the pathways that could block you from reaching your goal. You break down all these pathways into the smallest segments you can (this becomes your strings of either-or statements). Then you do everything in your power to optimize the pathway that gets you to your goal. You look for efficiencies. You root out redundancies. You banish ambiguities. You do it consciously and with a great sense of purpose, and, what's more, you regularly congratulate yourself on your ingenuity and persistence, which only serve to prove your point. Getting to your goal is no accident.

Here's how the script for "the Right to be Right" looks when drafted by the brain's System 2 networks: "I believe that I am a very special person who has been chosen by God* to save the world. I have very special gifts and a very special intelligence that will enable me to do what no one else before me has ever done. I am certain that I am right. Moreover, natural law dictates that I have the right to claim my superiority over others. Natural law wouldn't have made me so special unless I were, indeed, as special as I know myself to be, so natural law gives me the justification and authority I need to proclaim that I am right and must not be questioned by those of inferior ability. (I wouldn't be respecting the preeminence of natural law if I did anything less.) But I suspect some people may not believe I'm right, so I must do everything in my power to prove I'm right. Those of lesser ability will thank me for taking the steps I need to take in order to restore Order to our family/community/nation. God will thank me. I will be remembered in the annals of history as a great peacemaker. In the meantime, though, I must use every method at my disposal to prove to people that I am right. I am authorized (by natural law and by God) to hide, discard, or dispose of any facts or books or other sources of information that might create confusion about who is right and who is wrong. I am not obligated to consider any facts or books or other sources of information that might conflict with or undermine my "Right to be Right" (because, logically speaking, I do not and cannot make mistakes). If opposition to my goal of perfect Order becomes too vocal, too physical, or too heart-based, I have the authority to suppress dissent in order to preserve the pathways to ultimate perfection. Traits such as love, forgiveness, compromise, egalitarianism, and self-honesty must be considered enemies of Order, and must therefore be constantly opposed through just wars. I am confident that events will demonstrate conclusively that God has been on my side throughout the long and difficult path to salvation. (*Note: wherever you see the word "God" underlined, you can substitute the word "science" and get the same result.)

There are no limits to what a narcissist will do to ensure that his or her "Right to be Right" is protected. No cost is too great from the narcissist's perspective, even when the cost is everybody else's potential to have a loving relationship with God.

Keep this in mind as you read what religious and spiritual leaders, both past and present, have said about the presence of God.

Are they really trying to help you? Or are they hoarding the authority for themselves as all narcissists do?

God doesn't hoard love, and neither should God's human teachers and healers. So keep an eye out for the footprints of "the Right to be Right" in the books and lectures and workshops you choose. And watch for it in your own life choices, too. Most people these days are struggling with "the Right to be Right," so you have lots of company to help you work it out.

Meanwhile, in answer to the question above . . . what a narcissist fears most is that you'll see through the "Right to be Right" algorithm and realize the whole thing is a fraud from start to finish.

We all have days when we're right and we all have days when we're wrong. But no one except for God the Mother and God the Father have the right to be right.

The rest of us are just doing the best we can.

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

Is it okay for a person on the Spiral Path of wonder, science, and faith to believe in Karma? Is it okay for a person who believes in Divine Love to also believe in Karma?

Unfortunately, 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. This may sound a bit harsh -- maybe even a bit extreme -- but if you want to let go of the crippling fear that your soul is somehow defective or unworthy of hope and healing, then only one of these two theories has the power to free you from the fear.

October maples. Photo credit 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 yours, 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 from 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 filters you place on your decisions. If you make a decision to grow the Karma tree in your life, your brain will gradually rewire itself to reflect your belief that cause and effect are always predictable, that human rewards and punishments should always be immediate, obvious, and logical to the human mind. Such beliefs inevitably result in justifications for revenge; social hierarchies; resistance to healing and change; and rejection of the human need for forgiveness and redemption.

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 believed to be absolute. These laws state that 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 and 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 power 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: 

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. So if you want to build a strong, healthy, mature 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.  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 you 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. Sometimes this feedback feels a lot like Karma, but an angel is always looking for ways to help you expand your emotional choices, not shut them down based on human beliefs in the supremacy of purity, piety, and perfection.

Your angels will still love you and forgive you, though, as they help you let go of your fear and remember what your Heart and Soul feel like.

LSP24: Fox & Sheldrake's "Angels in the New Millennium": A Response

At the end of Fox and Sheldrake's book about angels -- The Physics of Angels:Exploring the Realm Where Science and Spirit Meet -- the two authors provide a neat and tidy summary of "some of the lessons we have learned." These "lessons" are based on Fox and Sheldrake's modern reinterpretation of the mystical writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, Hildegard of Bingen, and St. Thomas Aquinas.  (Please see my last LSP post: Look! Up in the Sky! It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's . . . Pseudo-Dionysius!)

One thing that's true about angels is that human beings generally see them as beautiful beings with wings. Photo credit Hemera Technologies 2001-2003.

Here is the summary list from pages 193-194 of their book.  Fox and Sheldrake's points about angels are shown in blue.  My responses are shown in black. 

"Angels are very numerous; they exist in astronomical numbers. There are many other kinds of consciousness in the cosmos besides human consciousness." Well, yes, angels are very numerous, and angels do exist in all places in the universe, but the way Fox and Sheldrake discuss consciousness is a red herring. To be an independent being is to have consciousness. All beings in the universe have consciousness. All beings in the universe (except for God the Mother and God the Father themselves) are children of God the Mother and God the Father. All beings in the universe are souls. All beings in the universe are angels. In other words, "having consciousness" has the same meaning as "being a child of God" which has the same meaning as "being a soul" which has the same meaning as "being an angel." These four phrases are synonyms for the same thing. So there is only one "kind of consciousness" in the universe. Having said that, I'd like to emphasize the fact that although there's only one kind of consciousness, there are countless different ways of expressing that consciousness. Angels are all equally important to God, but angels are all quite different from each other in the way they express their unique consciousness.

"Angels have been present from the origin of the universe." No. Angels have not been present from the origin of the universe. This is a very old idea that stems from theological claims for the timelessness and immutability (i.e. permanent lack of change) of God. Certain human beings at certain times in history have claimed that God is immutable and unchangeable and outside time and space because this claim has suited certain human agendas and political motives (especially human agendas involving claims for the divine status and authority of assorted human political and religious leaders). The reality is that God the Mother and God the Father are changing all the time, as are we, their children. Part of this reality is the reality that new angels (or souls) are being born all the time. As we speak, new angels are being born somewhere within God the Mother and God the Father's immense heart. Some of these newborn angels may one day choose to incarnate on one of the planets in our universe where some angels (though not all angels) choose to incarnate for purposes of learning, growth, and change. All angels who are currently incarnated on Planet Earth as "animals" (defined here as multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia (also called Metazoa)) are fairly young angels in the grand scheme of things. Being a young angel doesn't mean you're an inferior angel. It means you're an impatient angel who learns better by "doing" than by "hearing."

"They exist in a hierarchical order of nested levels within levels." No. Angels do not exist within hierarchies of spiritual ascent as described by Pseudo-Dionysius (or by Fox and Sheldrake), with some angels being closer to God than others because of their greater wisdom and purity. All such claims are damaging and hurtful. All angels in the universe -- every single one from youngest to oldest, smallest to biggest, intellectually brilliant to intellectually challenged -- are equally close to God and equally cherished by God the Mother and God the Father. GOD DON'T MAKE NO JUNK.

"They are the governing intelligences of nature." No. God the Mother and God the Father are the governing intelligences of nature, with all God's children being helpers and students in this great task. When you think you're hearing the voice of God in the wisdom of an ancient tree or an ancient rock, guess what . . . you're actually hearing the voice of God. (How cool is that?) Fox and Sheldrake, along with many others over the centuries, have tried to insert angels and nature spirits/devas into the reality of "God-as-Nature-and-God-as-Science" to separate you from God. While you may indeed have an experience of an angel while you're sitting quietly beside an ancient tree or ancient rock, the reason the angel is there is because angels -- like you -- want to hear the stories God the Mother and God the Father are telling us through the mediums of tree and water and wind and rock. Some angels, however, don't have to incarnate in order to hear these stories. They simply "visit" for short times. Sometimes humans and/or animals can see or hear or feel the presence of these "visiting angels." (Another important possibility is that you're sensing the presence of your own guardian angel while you're enjoying Nature, but I'll get to that in a minute.)

"They have a special relationship to light, fire, flames, and photons. There are astonishing parallels between Aquinas and Einstein with regard to the nature of angels and of photons: in their locomotion and mode of movement, their agelessness, and their being massless." Okay, this particular point just makes me want to throw up. First off, I want to remind everybody that Einstein was WRONG about non-locality, so to use Einstein (or the Aristotle-adoring-Aquinas) as a reliable authority to discuss the physics of angels is a stupid way to start. To follow up this form of stupidity with the idea that angels are massless -- when physicists have almost no understanding at all about the nature of dark matter, dark energy, or gravitational fields, and physicists don't know why only about 5% of the known energy of the universe takes the form of baryonic matter (what we call 3D matter) -- is just . . . just arrogant and simplistic and scientifically implausible. Massless? You really think consciousness is massless? Consciousness is full of mass -- it's just not 3D mass, so physicists don't understand it well and have no models at present to explain it. Also, it's wrong to state that angels have "a special relationship to light, fire, flames, and photons" because this denies the equality of angels who have a special relationship to water or to heliospheric energies or to gravitational fields or to the periodic table of elements or to any of the other countless and amazing and breathtaking forms of expression that angelic consciousness takes in God's great Creation. Get over the idea that light=God. Much of God's great Creation thrives within varied forms of "darkness." As far as God is concerned, if an angel is more comfortable in a quiet, private, dark environment (as on the ocean floor), that's a good thing. Divine Love is found in everything -- not just in light, fire, flames, and photons.

"They are musical in nature and work in harmonious relationship with one another." Finally, a point I can agree with! Yes, angels are musical in nature because music is one of God's important languages. But music isn't the only language angels use. Even more surprising, not all angels sing the same songs or even enjoy the same songs. Some angels love country, while others don't resonate with country at all. This is okay with God. Why should all angels like the same music? Why should they all sing the same songs? As long as you share your songs, and sing them joyfully from the heart, God is happy.

"The majority are friendly, but not all. Christ has power over the angels."  What the F@#&!  Please see point above: GOD DON'T MAKE NO JUNK. There are no "bad" or "evil" or "fallen" angels. There are no souls in creation who choose NOT to be part of God the Mother and God the Father's wondrous, loving, harmonious, kooky, surprising, courageous family. Fox and Sheldrake are repeating an ancient idea that's often been used to explain why certain people (people who think they deserve to be treated well by God) have ended up in tragic and difficult situations. This is part of the millennia-old tradition of Wisdom literature that says if you obey all of God's "divinely revealed laws," you'll be rewarded with many blessings (e.g. health, long life, wealth, many children, or whatever your particular culture believes is most desirable). Of course, God and your guardian angels don't necessarily agree with your belief in what's most desirable, and when they don't agree with you, you can be sure they'll express their opinion to you. Directly and often. You'll just have to learn to understand what they're saying to you and why.

"They have a special relationship to human consciousness. We human beings help link the earthly world with cosmic intelligences." This is another idea that's been kicking around for millennia in most major world religions. It's sometimes known by its Judaic name, Tikkun olam. (Tikkun olam   תקון עולם in Hebrew, is a phrase that means "repairing the world" or "healing the world," which suggests humanity's shared responsibility to heal, repair and transform the world). It's also an idea that shows up in some philosophical theories about humanity's relationship to the Dao. Basically, it's a highly anthropocentric idea that says human beings have a special role to play in the great cosmic plan to heal the universe. Of course, this assumes there is a great cosmic plan to heal the universe . . .  So is it at least true that angels have a "special relationship to human consciousness"? Well, yes. But this is only because each angel who incarnates on Planet Earth is sent along with a whole team of guardian angels to guide that one individual, and this team of angels always includes some of the angels who are closest to the incarnated angel when we're Home on the Other Side in non-3D form. So of course it feels as if we have a "special relationship" with our guardian angels!  They're some of our closest friends in the universe!

"Angels may have played a special role in the birth of language." I don't even know what to say to this one. Language is intrinsic to consciousness. Language is, in fact, one of the defining characteristics of consciousness. There are many forms of language in God's Creation (as mentioned above). Human beings don't have a monopoly on language on Planet Earth. In fact, some biologists who study animal culture are finally going on record to describe what most of the rest of us have always known: animals have their own "languages" and forms of specific communication with each other -- and also with us! The most important factor in the development of advanced language skills is relationship. Those who aren't exposed to strong relationships of love and empathy and respect in their early years won't develop strong language skills during their lives on Earth. In so far as relationships of love and empathy and respect are central to the human ability to connect with God and God's angels, I guess one could say angels played -- and CONTINUE to play -- a role in the development of our language skills.

Okay, skipping ahead here on Fox and Sheldrake's list because even I'm starting to get exhausted . . .

"Their primary role is praise" AND "They are present at holy worship." Well, crap. These two short statements show such a profound lack of understanding about who God is and what Divine Love is that if you want to know my full response to these statements, you're going to have to read all 189 posts on my first four blogs. (Doesn't that sound like fun?)

My short answer to these two statements is this: an angel's job is NOT to offer praise and worship to God (although angels are always hugging Mother Father God and saying thank you to show our appreciation). While it's true that angels ARE present at human services of religious worship, it's only because guardian angels never abandon their charges and never leave their sides for a moment. This means that your guardian angel is with you 24/7 from the time you're conceived until the moment you die and are taken Home by God the Mother and God the Father. This has always been true for every incarnated being on Planet Earth, and this will always be true, because God the Mother and God the Father would never ever contemplate leaving you alone for a second. So Fox and Sheldrake's eschatological idea that "the good angels are coming, the good angels are coming" is hogwash. Our angels have never left us and never will.

Your guardian angels are always with you.This means your angels see every little choice you're making. They see you when you're not being loving; they see you when you're going to church or temple or synagogue and repeating awful things about God; they see you when you're buying into religious myths that tell you God favours human beings over all over creatures; and they see you when you're choosing Platonic and Gnostic myths over God's loving and scientific realities.

That's the bad news.  The good news is  . . . your angels forgive you!


For Further Reflection:

It's all about the big picture.

The big picture is the only thing your angels are interested in. The big picture guides the decisions made by your guardian angels. The big picture shapes the events you don't want and didn't ask for. The big picture takes precedence over your human beliefs and prayers.

For angels, the big picture is all about relationships -- knowing God the Mother and God the Father in ways we didn't think possible, and knowing ourselves in ways we didn't think possible. And relationships are the messiest, least logical experiences of our human lives, right? Relationships involve struggle. And confusion. And miscommunication. And healing. And forgiveness. And love. And pain.

Yes, it's painful to be a human being with a Heart. It's painful to know grief. It's painful to wrestle with forgiveness. It's painful to let go of denial and embrace self honesty and personal change. And it's especially painful if you spend your whole life denigrating the Heart and exalting the Mind. Pursuing the Mind's goals (purity, piety, and perfection) at the expense of the Heart's goals  (humbleness, humour, and health) is the worst feeling of all for a human being. That's the whole point as far as your guardian angels are concerned. They want you to have the chance to wrestle with your own free will. They want you to see what it feels like to make really bad choices. It's only when you're faced with the stark reality of your terrible mistakes that you have the chance to dig deep into your own courage, your own love, and your own forgiveness. In doing so, you learn important truths about yourself as a child of God. You learn an eternal lesson about the infinite power of Divine Love to fix the Mind's screw-ups.

So yes, your guardian angels will sometimes let you fall flat on your face. And other times they'll step in to stop you from messing up your whole life. It depends on the situation, though. It depends on the big picture.

If you can manage to remember that you, as a human being, are being asked by your guardian angels to take responsibility for your free will -- to fully "own" your free will and use it wisely -- then some of questions you have about your life will make more sense.

You don't have to be perfect to know God and be close to God. You just have to try each day to balance your Heart and your Mind to the best of your ability. The effort to do this is always going to be gnarly and unpredictable, so don't give yourself too hard a time.

This is where Divine Humour comes in!

LSP20: A New Spin on the Old Seven Deadlies

We've all heard about the seven deadly sins. In the Christian tradition, pride, envy, anger, lust, greed, sloth, and gluttony are the usual contenders for the crown of worst human traits ever. Even if you don't agree with the Church's teachings on why we're sinful, it's pretty hard to argue with the fact that human beings do awful, awful things to themselves, each other, and the planet because of pride, anger, and the rest.

When people behave badly, they often look to religion to explain their behaviour and give them tools to change their behaviour in the future. Sometimes people want to change because they're afraid their souls will end up in hell. Other times people want to change because they're tired of not being able to like themselves or trust themselves. Either way, they're up against the dreaded topic of ethics and morality.

Can you actually be happy or feel your connection with God if you don't try your best to be ethical or moral?

A lot of people have simply given up on the idea of trying to be ethical and trying to live a moral life. They pretend on the surface to care about ethics, and they're quick to express their shock and outrage on Twitter, but when they're asked in their own lives to make moral choices, they don't have the tools to actually do it. What's worse, they don't know why they don't have the tools.

It's almost impossible to tackle a major psychological and spiritual issue if you don't understand at a logical, rational, scientific level why you're doing what you're doing. You need a solid explanation to stand on, so to speak, a solid explanation to help ground you and keep you sane as you struggle to change and make new choices.

As we know, the Church's explanation for why you're being proud, envious, angry, lustful, greedy, slothful, and gluttonous is Sin with a capital "S." Various Eastern and New Age teachings have trumped Christianity's Sin by claiming that all your unloving behaviour is an illusion anyway, an illusion you can escape through your own hard work and discipline.

I offer an entirely different explanation. I suggest (because it's what I've been taught through my mystical connection with God the Mother, God the Father, and other angels in the Core) that almost all human beings are wrestling with the challenges of status addiction. It's status addiction -- not Sin, not karma, and not evil forces -- that's wrecking your life.

Status addiction tricks your brain into thinking you look like this . . .

What is pride? Pride is what you "feel" when the addicted parts of your brain sense your hoard of status points is being threatened.

What is envy? Envy is what you "feel" when the addicted parts of your brain suspect your neighbour has acquired some status points you "rightfully" deserve.

. . . when really, from the point of view of God, your angels, and your own soul, your status-addicted brain looks more like this. Status addiction saps the creativity, intuition, and sense of meaning and purpose from your life. If you want to get closer to God, you need to be honest with yourself about what status addiction is doing to your brain.

What is anger? Anger is what you "feel" when the addicted parts of your brain suspect your neighbour has tried to steal status points from you.

What is lust? Lust is what you "feel" when the addicted parts of your brain justify your plan to invade somebody else's personal boundaries to steal some of their status points.

What is greed? Greed is the addictive high you feel at the very thought of acquiring some new status points.

What is sloth? Sloth is the state of denial about your addiction disorder.

What is gluttony? Gluttony is a secondary addiction disorder (a co-morbid disorder) that easily arises in the brain of a person who's already experiencing another addiction disorder (in this case, the addiction to status).

That's status addiction in a nutshell.

Now here's the big question.

How many people do you know who have managed all on their own, without any help from anyone else, to personally recognize, confront, cope with, and completely heal their own major addiction disorders (e.g. addiction to opioids, pornography, perfectionism)?

I'm guessing not many.

It takes a community to build a culture based on status addiction, and it's going to take a community to confront and heal the catastrophic problems caused by this addiction.

The first step in healing any addiction is self honesty. The second is recognizing a higher power that can give you strength.

God, please help us with this great task!

Amen.


For Further Reflection:

You may have noticed as you read this post that when the seven deadly sins are defined as "shades" or "colours" of status addiction, it's easier to see how these behaviours violate the morality of boundaries, the morality that guides all loving actions in God's universe.

Almost everyone has been in the position of feeling what it's like to have your personal boundaries invaded.

Invasion of personal space can take many forms, from the innocuous (a neighbour who stands an inch or two too close to you) to the violent (a trusted professional who sexually assaults your children). Occasionally, invasions of personal space involve tangible weapons (e.g. knives, guns, or fists) that leave marks on your physical body, marks that other people can see and sympathize with. More often than not, though, the chosen weapons are things that can't be seen with the human eye: cruel remarks that cut you down and make you feel bad about yourself; intentional manipulation that tricks you into lowering your defences so your reputation or money can be stolen from you; denial and deceit that steal your voice; physical intimidation that threatens to steal your livelihood if you refuse to submit to sexual advances; aggressive demands that you obey, even worship, your abusers lest you be ejected from your family or community and left to fend for yourself.

All invasions, however, share a common thread: a sense that someone has stolen a piece of your personal safety.

As with other forms of injury, small cuts and bruises to your sense of personal safety can, and should be, healed in short order. But major assaults, such as attempted murder, rape, or spiritual violations, leave large holes that take years to heal and always leave scars no matter how loving and forgiving you are. Coping with such major injuries can become a full-time job, making it difficult for you to apply your time, energy, and talents to anything but survival.

If it were true, as so many spiritual leaders are currently claiming, that the path to spiritual enlightenment is eradication of boundaries and transcendence of the self, then we would expect to see great benefits accrue to all cultures that oppose boundaries and endorse Oneness. We would expect to see less suffering, greater prosperity, more happiness, and more cultural creativity in dictator-driven Communist societies; totalitarian and fascist regimes; fundamentalist sects; and certain Buddhist and New Age communities -- places that have given us the chance to observe the long term effects of practising Oneness.

We do not, in fact, see such benefits. Instead, we see the opposite.

Cultures and religions that embrace a morality of personal boundaries have done a particularly good job of reducing suffering and maintaining happiness while at the same time offering opportunities for individuation, creative self expression, mutual self respect, and the quest for Meaning.

In order for you to build and maintain your relationship with Mother Father God, you need to begin to examine the ways in which status addiction is punching holes through your personal sense of safety. You're not just looking for situations where other people are trying to steal from you; you're looking for the ways in which your own habits, ideologies, and unchallenged beliefs are deceiving you into stealing from yourself.

This is what all forms of addiction boil down to: allowing some parts of your brain (especially your reward and pleasure pathways) to steal from other parts of your human self (such as your soul-related Meaning networks).

At the start of every spiritual journey, there's a person who doesn't know how to get rid of his or her multifaceted expressions of pride, envy, anger, lust, greed, sloth, and gluttony. But each step towards Humbleness, Divine Love, and Divine Forgiveness will help you gradually shed the burden of status addiction's smelly, toxic, thorn-covered leaves.

The leaves that grow in their place are Peace.

LSP19: Learning How to Breathe: Finding Freedom of Spirit in a World That Tries to Crush You

Dr. Alexander and I grew up at roughly the same time.  He was born in late 1953, and I was born in mid-1958. So we've been exposed to a lot of the same influences over the years. We both grew up in that short breath of time between the end of one era (the world that died with WWII) and the start of a new era (the world that began with widespread computers networks).Yet, for all the similarities between Dr. Alexander and myself in those early years -- the books, the films, the TV shows, and the unforgettable music -- there were many differences. Each of us belonged to a particular time and place and culture, and each of us still carries the lessons of time and place and culture within us. Those lessons shaped us. To this day, the experiences of our youth affect how we claim -- and proclaim -- our spiritual life today.

How does culture shape our spiritual journey? Is there such a thing as a universal culture of Oneness that transcends all earthly differences? Do all people who connect deeply with God inevitably end up in the same place? Do we become carbon copies of each other and God?

Last time, I talked about some of the problems posed by Gnosticism. I know I've complained about Gnosticism before (sorry about that), but I keep coming back to it because it's had such a powerful influence on our spiritual lives -- not just now, but in centuries long past. I keep thinking . . . why?  Why do Gnostic ideas keep rearing their dopey heads? And why do people keep listening to them?

I've boiled it down to one painful answer. I think Gnosticism becomes very attractive to people who've noticed they can no longer breathe.

I mean this in a spiritual and emotional sense rather than a physical sense. 

In Johnson's Canyon, Alberta, you'd think the steep rock walls towering on both sides of the river would make you feel claustrophobic, but instead there's a sense that you've stepped into a unique pocket of beauty where God is telling a story that's different from the narratives of the surrounding mountain terrain. I think part of what makes Johnson's Canyon so popular and so appealing is its ability to surprise us. Our souls long to be delighted and surprised by unexpected turnings on the path of life. Unfortunately for us in today's society, the brain's System 2 circuits despise unexpected . . . well . . . unexpected anything. System 2's need to maintain intense perfectionistic control over all aspects of life is one of the hallmarks of status addiction in the brain.

Breath, as a metaphor for life in all its complexity, has been linked by innumerable authors to the elusive concept of "spirit." The Book of Genesis is crystal clear on the connection. (Ruah in Hebrew means divine wind, natural spirit of man, and breath.) But you don't have to believe in the Bible to feel the link between breath and freedom of life, freedom of spirit. When you live in a culture that gives you the freedom to be yourself, you feel alive and free and full of purpose. When you live in a culture that forbids you to be yourself, you feel suffocated and frustrated and low in spirit.

It's bad enough living in a culture that forbids you to be yourself. When you live in a culture governed by status addiction, it's even worse. You feel choked to death by all the rules and expectations and lies. You feel trapped, unable to feel your core self drawing the breath of life and love and spirit. You long to escape just so you can remember what it feels like to be at peace in your own skin.

Gnosticism appears to offer you that escape. Gnosticism starts by affirming your impression that you feel miserable as hell (which you do). Then it says you have a small spark of God inside you that's desperate to return to its Source (which sounds kind of right because you can feel your inner longing to breathe). Then it tells you there's a "good" place (somewhere off in Creation where Source exists) and an "evil" place (which may look a lot like your local neighbourhood gang headquarters). Last, it promises that if you possess the secret knowledge given by the prophesied saviour figure, you can escape all the evil and return to the good place, where everybody blends together in a blissful state of "oneness." 

You know what's missing from this pretty little Gnostic picture? Self honesty.

Gnosticism is designed to shift your focus and attention away from the bad decisions you and your neighbours are making right here and right now. Gnosticism gives you a way to make excuses for the humongous problems created by status addiction.

Once you fully accept the harm created in our society by status addiction, there's no need whatsoever to claim that God scattered small bits of evil throughout the universe. It's status addiction that crushes the heart out of people and takes away their chance to breathe. It's status addiction writ large across communities in the form of "noble cultural traditions" that ruins lives.

As it happens, I didn't grow up in a culture steeped in status addiction. Sure, there were currents of status anxiety here and there, and some of them were pretty ugly. But by and large, the Canada I grew up in was relatively egalitarian compared to most other nations at the time. I'm not saying Canada was problem-free. I'm saying I learned at a fairly early age how to breathe.

And I didn't need Gnosticism to do it.

What I've learned on the Spiral Path is that when you strip away the claustrophobic demands and expectations of status addiction, you get an incredible sense of expansion in your life. You get this feeling of being able to breathe from deep inside your gut. Suddenly you can enjoy the best things in your culture -- the books, the films, the TV shows, the music -- without being afraid for your soul's salvation. You gradually learn how to sort out what your soul likes and what your soul doesn't like. You stick with what you like, and you respect your neighbour's right to like something else. We don't all have to be the same.

Did you see this week's story about Sister Cristina Scuccia, Italy's "Singing Nun," who won Italy's version of The Voice by really rockin' it from her heart and soul?

There's a person who knows how to breathe.


For Further Reflection:

You know that feeling of constantly needing to check your smartphone and desperately hoping for likes on your most recent post? That compulsion about spending time on your social media pages, a compulsion that won't go away no matter how much you tell yourself to ignore it? That rationalization telling you it's okay to text while you're driving and ignore your children while you're checking for likes one last time?

That's status addiction.

Bearing in mind how many people have this feeling every day, would it be fair to say that countless millions of people have a problem with addiction and don't even realize it?

Yes, it would be a fair and honest thing to say.

The problem with any kind of addiction, whether it's status addiction or an addiction to sex or substances, is the way it messes with our brain networks and prevents us from being our best selves. This isn't news, of course, to anyone who's discovered the power of denial and deceit to disguise addiction. Denial and deceit give our brains the momentum needed to suppress the soul's morality of boundaries and choose the brain's morality of Oneness instead. It's the morality of Oneness, with its focus on blurred boundaries, communalism, and rights without responsibilities, that allows us to rationalize the crimes we commit during the throes of our cravings.

It may not seem reasonable to you that God allows your biological brain to wander off on technological tangents and succumb to the evils of denial and deceit, but this is the only way God can offer you the chance to experience redemption without in any way harming your eternal soul.

Jesus was among a rare group of religious thinkers for whom the path of redemption was the only way to reestablish a relationship with God. In practical terms, the path of redemption means being honest enough to see the perils of a morality of Oneness and being courageous enough to set aside Oneness for a morality of boundaries. This is what he wrote in the Letter of James (parts of which I'm certain were written by Jesus himself in his own highly literate hand):

"But be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves. For if any are hearers of the word and not doers, they are like those who look at themselves in a mirror; for they look at themselves [at the face of their birth] and, on going away, immediately forget what they were like. But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act -- they will be blessed in their doing" (James 1: 22-25).

On your own spiritual journey, you need to be able to look in the mirror and recognize yourself. You need to be able to remember who you are at all times so you're not vulnerable to the lies that other people are trying to tell you.

The freedom to be yourself and to breathe in the wonder of your own uniqueness as a child of God will help you find the daily blessings you so long for in your life.

LSP18: Teeth-Gnashing and Gnosticism: The Question of Evil Entities

Okay. There's simply no way of getting around these three big questions: (1) Do evil supernatural entities exist? (2) Is there an ongoing battle in Creation between good and evil? and (3) If there is such a battle, do human beings play a significant role in restoring balance to the universe?

My short answers are (1) No; (2) No; and (3) No.

Although I'm generally supportive of Dr. Alexander's first book, there's one chapter I disagree with from beginning to end. It's Chapter 15 ("The Gift of Forgetting"), in which Dr. Alexander attempts to answer the question of why God allows evil and suffering in the world (i.e. the theodicy question).  I really wish he'd given more thought to this chapter before he decided to include it in his book. It's chockablock full of the damaging, dualistic, overly simplistic Gnostic ideas that have plagued the human-Divine relationship for centuries.

From the core assumptions of Gnosticism many different religious movements have sprouted (including the Qumran sect of Second Temple Judaism; the Persian religion known as Manichaeism; and assorted Christian heresies). At its root, Gnosticism assumes there's something seriously wrong with the world we live in, but if we have the correct secret knowledge ("gnosis" in Greek) we can escape from worldly evil and return to the love that's characteristic of our true home in Heaven. Central to Gnosticism's claims is a belief in a Christ-like Saviour figure who will risk -- or who has risked -- everything to reveal this secret knowledge to human beings.

Jesus was a man, mystic, and healer who knew God so well and trusted God so much that he rejected all the ancient religious ideas about good versus evil and taught something very different. His teachings started with the idea that God gives us full latitude to explore what free will means. Some people choose to follow the path of power and abuse, but there's always the possibility they'll use their free will to choose the other path -- the path of goodness and love and trust in God. If they don't, however, God will forgive them, bring them Home, heal them, and help them understand the free will lessons they experienced. There's no room in Jesus' paradigm for the Devil or Judgment Day or Hell or salvation of the elect. So Jesus' paradigm has never been a very popular idea, even among Christians (strange as that may seem). If you want to get to know God, and feel Divine Love in "the Core," you can't go wrong by following Jesus' teachings on courage, trust, gratitude, and devotion. This figure of the crucified Christ was made in the first half of the 12th century in Germany, and is on display at the Art Gallery of Ontario. Photo credit JAT 2018.

Dr. Alexander reveals his sympathy for the Gnostic position throughout Chapter 15. He says, for instance (and I quote), "Small particles of evil were scattered throughout the universe, but the sum total of all that evil was as a grain of sand on a vast beach compared to the goodness, abundance, hope, and unconditional love in which the universe was literally awash" (page 83).

Let's stop the bus right there. "Small particles of evil were scattered throughout the universe"!!??  Really? God is so stupid that God took a watering can and sprinkled evil around the garden of Creation? God is so stupid that God couldn't figure out any way to give us free will as human beings except to introduce seeds of evil into the world we live in (Proof of Heaven, page 83-84)?

Oh, come on!

This particular species of religious tree has been nurtured wherever people have been trying to reconcile the experience of deeply felt Divine Love with the realities of suffering and abuse in the world. Gnostics are the first to loudly trumpet the preeminence of Divine Love and the first to fall back on the myth of "good versus evil" as soon as they're asked to explain why suffering exists in the world.  In my view, the Gnostic answer to the three questions posed here is sloppy, lazy, and not the least bit courageous.

It takes courage and trust to hold fast to God's hand, to look beyond the simple black and white myths of Gnosticism, to open your whole heart, mind, body, and soul to another explanation for suffering besides evil and evil entities. It takes courage to completely let go of all belief systems that preach the existence of supernatural evil as a force in opposition to God. It takes courage to let go of the idea that "we can't truly know good unless we know its polar opposite, evil, so God must allow some evil to exist." This is the old idea, the Materialist idea of cause and effect, the New Age idea that makes no room for the wonder and mystery of Divine Love.

I should say, in closing, that I understand the position Dr. Alexander found himself in when he was writing his book. He was trying to find a logical explanation for suffering that would be accepted by an audience steeped in myths of good versus evil, light versus darkness. I once swallowed this logic myself (to my utter chagrin). However, if Dr. Alexander has to go through what I went through, his angels are gonna kick his ass around the block until he takes what he wrote in Chapter 15 and dumps it in the garbage can.

Good luck to you, Eben!  Call me if you need some help!

Best wishes,
Jen


For Further Reflection:

There's no question that human beings can spin webs of evil unimaginable to the heart of an angel, webs of evil so all-consuming that sometimes the shock waves last for decades, centuries, even millennia. It's natural and normal for us to wonder where such evil comes from. We all want explanations we can understand, because when we have explanations, we can begin the search for solutions.

Newton's third law states that for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. Most of us assume that Newton's third law applies in metaphysical physics as much as in classical physics. We believe that if we understand the cause of evil, the countervailing reactive force will become clear to us. We also assume the corollary: if pure love exists in the world, it must exist as a response -- an equal and opposite reaction -- to pure evil.

Our human minds find this Materialist approach appealing. After all, it seems eminently logical. It seems highly consistent with the laws of classical physics we've deduced through observation and experience. It suits our human preference for cause-and-effect justice.

Every major world religion is a response to our mind-based desire for explanations and solutions about evil. We turn to our religious leaders to explain the cause of evil so we can choose appropriate actions to heal and prevent evil.

While many of the healing actions appear similar from religion to religion (e.g. be kind, be merciful, be hospitable), the explanations for the causes of evil appear on the surface to differ widely. Christianity, Islam, and some branches of Judaism rely heavily on theories about evil entities. Buddhism, and the older traditions from which it sprang, preach the inescapable laws of karma. Dig deeper, though, to the tap roots of these religions, and you'll find a common link: the assumption that the true cause of evil is a vast, metaphysical force you can do battle with but never control (unless you're a bona fide saint, Bodhisattva, or Messiah).

Nobody wants to hear that the actual cause of evil lies in the scientific wiring of the human brain. Who's going to put money in the collection plate just to hear the bad news that we, as persons-of-soul, incarnated on purpose to see what it feels like to struggle with free will and seek redemption? That kind of teaching puts all the onus on us as human beings. It means we have to learn to take responsibility for our own thoughts, feelings, and actions. There's no supernatural force to blame when we screw up and harm our relationships, including our relationship with God. There's no get-out-of-jail free card. There's only ourselves, our families and communities, and our relationship with God.

So yes, your human brain allows you the possibility to choose some very evil, scary paths. But keep in mind that your human brain isn't supernatural. It's 100% temporary biological matter. It isn't going with you when you die. It's staying right here, with the rest of your biological body, to be recycled into the planet as organic and inorganic matter. So whatever evil your brain manages to create during your human lifetime, you can trust that God knows how fix it even if you don't.

God is much smarter about all these questions than we can ever be. Although it's okay for us to be upset and confused about evil on Planet Earth, it's not okay for us to believe that God and God's angels have been negligent in their care of us or the universe.

Don't EVER tell God or your angels that you need protection from evil entities. Asking for protection is a clear indication that you're not ready or willing to trust God.

Instead, ask God for help in understanding how you've been using your own free will to shoot yourself in the foot. Then ask for help in learning how to take control of your own free will.

It's kind of like learning to right a small boat in big waves. It's challenging, but God knows that, with help, you can do it.

LSP17: "Why Didn't God Just Show Up in Front of Me?"

A few years ago, I had a conversation with a man I'll call Joe. Joe was very angry about the question of God and suffering (the theodicy question). Some of Joe's anger came from his experience as a gay man who was forced to deal with emotional and spiritual abuse from homophobic Christians who believe God rejects homosexuality. 

 

I continue to marvel at this carving of a heron feeding its chick. How did the artist envisage such beauty when he or she picked up a simple, 3-foot log and began to shape it into an image of abundant Life? Each time I've moved over the past couple of decades, I've lived in trepidation that one of the delicate wooden legs would snap. But sometimes it's the slenderest of connections that holds us up. Photo credit JAT 2021.

 

Joe asked questions that many other people are asking about God. He demanded to know where God had been while he was suffering. He asked why God hadn't just shown up in front of him to give him clear answers about his sexuality and faith. He asked why he had to figure everything out on his own without any help from anyone at all.

This is what I wrote in reply:

What I'm hearing is a lot of anger that God didn't just show up in front of you to tell you it was ok to be gay.

So I'm wondering . . . have you thought about what it would have been like at a practical, realistic level if God actually had shown up to talk to you? Have you thought about the fact that such a miraculous occurrence would have made your life much worse, not much better?

As a mystic, I live on a daily basis with phenomena that seem normal and very practical and scientific to me, but even for me some things would be too much. Too much for my very human, very 3D brain to process. The brain has limits. The brain expects a certain measure of consistency and predictability from the world around it. This is how the healthy brain copes with all the emotions and perceptions and memories and learning processes we cram into it.

Okay. So think about this for a minute. You're sitting in your bedroom and you're praying to God about the painful situation you're in vis-a-vis your family and your sexuality, and suddenly you look up to see an angel of God standing beside the door. You can see the angel's face and hands and wings and glowing robes. Next you hear the angel speak. The angel says, "Fear not, for you are gay. I have come to tell you that God loves you because you are gay. Now go into the world and preach what I have taught you."

So you go downstairs and you tell your family what you saw and heard, and they call a psychiatrist friend of theirs and have you involuntarily assessed, and the psychiatrist gives you a tentative diagnosis of schizophrenia.

So far, you're not better off.

This isn't the worst part, though. The worst part is the self-doubt generated within your own brain about your experience. You start ruminating on it. You go over and over the experience. Did you really see an angel? Who was he? Or was "he" a "she"? Why didn't the angel stay longer? Why didn't he say more? What did he mean when he said you should go out and preach what he taught you? What did he actually teach you?

Did you really just imagine it? Did you have an hallucination? A psychotic break? (Maybe you did!!! -- omigosh, you've gone crazy, and now you'll never have a life or a partner or a job ever again!!!) Can you trust yourself now? Can you trust anyone now?

The loving God who is with you always is not going to set you up for a tragedy like this -- a tragedy that would make your life much worse.

Joe, you ask, "Why did I have to figure out everything on my own?" (Though I confess I'm surprised you show no gratitude towards the on-line friends and the non-Christians and the books you referred to, who've helped you on your journey according to your own testimony).

You had to figure it out for yourself so the knowledge would be yours. So the insight would be yours. So nobody could take it away from you ever again.

This is an honest, truthful, fair path to understanding and transformation. It requires that you "raise the bar" for yourself by taking personal responsibility for your own thoughts, feelings, and self-knowledge rather than relying exclusively on the authority of others. It requires that you use the resources of your own 3-pound universe (that is, your brain). It requires that you look at Creation in new ways you never thought possible.

And it doesn't ask you to learn within a framework of occult magic, as Pauline Christianity and its predecessors have long expected you to do.

So maybe you might want to consider cutting God some slack.

(I know you say you don't believe in a theistic God, but methinks thou dost protest too much.)

Love Jen

Just for the record . . . I personally believe that a person's core sexuality, whether homosexual or heterosexual, is hardwired into his/her DNA as a permanent, natural, and healthy aspect of his/her core identity. It's a non-negotiable part of who we are. To treat another person badly on the basis of DNA-based sex or core sexual orientation is about as far from loving as it's possible to get. I reject all religious teachings that claim "divine justification" for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The path of knowing yourself (including knowing and trusting your heart-based sexuality) is a commitment to opening your eyes and your heart to the many everyday clues that surround you all the time. Part of this commitment is a willingness to ask what your fellow human beings can teach you about yourself and about God. Books can teach you. Art can teach you. Scientists can teach you. Families can teach you. Your task is to be part of Creation -- to immerse yourself in all its many narratives -- so you can begin to recognize the colours and shapes and movements and sounds that resonate deep within your heart. A painting that resonates with you is important because you're responding to images your soul finds familiar and comforting. A painting that speaks to you is doing just that -- speaking to you about who you really are. And listening to a painting is a lot less stressful for you and your family than listening to an angel who suddenly pops into your room. This room at the Art Gallery of Ontario features late nineteenth and early twentieth century Canadian artwork. Photo credit JAT 2018.

 

For Further Reflection:

After you begin to master the practice of spiritual gratitude (contemplation and thanks for the positive experiences in life) comes the difficult part of your journey: learning to how to wrestle with the question of suffering and then, after a lot of mistakes, come out smelling like roses.

Nobody wants to do this part. It's just so hard. It's so darned hard that all major world religions have shied away from the question by offering you various escape mechanisms (e.g. salvation; Judgment Day and hell; nirvana; energy balancing; scientism) that sound really good -- and really easy -- by comparison. In Christianity, the apostle Paul thought Jesus' teachings on the theodicy question were so ridiculous and so impossible for regular people to invest in that he (Paul) grafted a Saviour religion onto the root of Jesus' teachings. Paul thought this was a good idea because he didn't share Jesus' faith in the power of individuals to venture into the heart of suffering to seek the Tree of Life.

The Tree of Life, so different from the Tree of Moral Knowledge, is a tree that's covered in all sorts of unwieldy branches and painful sticky patches and bunches of ugly-looking fruits that ripen at puzzling times. It's unpredictable. It can't be harnessed or controlled. It leans away from you when you try to capture it; then, when you've given up in frustration and stop focusing on it, it suddenly drops sweet seeds straight into your heart. There is a paradoxical blend of beauty and terror in this experience.

Despite our unwillingness to voluntarily approach this tree, God and God's angels regularly drop us onto its branches so we'll have the chance to figure out the mystery of Divine Love and Forgiveness for ourselves. This is what happened to Dr. Alexander when God plucked him from his orderly life and showed him the Tree of Life, which is to say the family of loving angels he was introduced to during his near death experience.

The Tree of Life, like the trees we know on Planet Earth, holds within its gnarly structure rings upon rings of memory -- memories of transformation, memories of healing, and memories of love.

At the very core of the Tree of Life lie the memories from our Mother and Father's earliest times together. Here rest the memories of redemption.

It's redemption that we, as human beings, experience each time we choose to face our experiences of suffering and learn from them. We don't escape our suffering; we transform our suffering by using our whole selves -- our hearts, minds, bodies, and courage -- to take what we've learned and help others.

Redemption doesn't happen automatically. You have to want it. You have to choose it. You have to dredge up every ounce of courage you can muster to face the pain. You have to be willing to be changed by a past -- a set of memories -- you can't change. You have to learn to bend, like the Tree of Life -- to bend away from those who want you to forget who you really are. You have to learn to forgive.

None of this is easy, but regular people do it every day in every part of the world despite the lack of encouragement they get from their spiritual and religious leaders.

Redemption (unlike the promise of religious salvation) is a universal practice unbound by gender or race or sexual orientation or clan or religion or culture or history. Anyone can choose it.

Jesus knew this. It's what made him so unpopular among his religious peers.