The Universe is the direct, verifiable evidence of the existence of a power greater than ourselves that some people call God. And I take it one step further: I am the individualization of God, as are all things in the Universe. The scientific discovery of energy, something that can be manipulated, is also the direct, verifiable evidence of the existence of God. If you consider the definition of God, it overlays precisely onto the definition of pure energy with these two exceptions: consciousness and intelligence. But then, where do consciousness and intelligence come from, what is their source, if they didn't come from the only one thing that is constant in the Universe: energy. If consciousness is something separate from energy, then there are now two distinct and mutually exclusive properties in the Universe. And if there are two mutually exclusive properties of the Universe, what is their source? The conundrum is this: if there is a source of "something," can that source be "nothing?" Because if it were "something," then it, too, would have to have a source.
Several books have been written about topic. One of them, "The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom" by Gerald L. Schroeder, attempts to give both sides of the story full credit. It's a long and sometimes tedious read because the author includes ample Biblical references and scientific citations. By the end of chapter 3 you may be convinced that both sides are right, and you begin to see how they are both talking about the same thing. For example: "In the beginning was the void" compares to the science view that it all started from a singularity. Then, "Let there be light" coincides with the science view of the very first star being born. And so on. What is clearly explained is how the six days of creation compares with the 15 billion years of the history of the Universe (as we know it).
The whole debate about God boils down to this for me: I AM. This body of mine is a vehicle for I AM. When the vehicle expires (transforms into the nothingness (energy) from which it came, there is still I AM. For just as E=MC^2 defines that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, neither can energy be created nor destroyed. One does not gain energy by destroying matter. One can only release the confined energy in what we call matter. By definition, energy is required for consciousness, or so we think. I say energy IS consciousness. We can combine atoms to form molecules, and molecules to form objects. But the actual form of any atom is energy, and specifically, atoms are a collection of energy packets (quantum states) at different wavelengths (frequencies). Hence, the actual form of any object is energy. If you gather energy of a wide array of frequencies together in one place, you have a mind, a body, and a thinker. By my definition, a rock is conscious - just not something we have learned to communicate with, yet. And by my definition, all things are life in different forms.
If the agreed upon criteria for life is consciousness, being self-aware, able to communicate, and have the capacity to reproduce, then there is no way that anyone can murder another; they are only altering the form that life takes. "Thou shalt not kill" actually becomes, "Thou canst not kill." Life is eternal because consciousness (energy) is eternal. The form that life expresses itself alters all the time, either by accident, by design, or by manipulation. That doesn't mean it's okay to go around wantonly altering forms (including burning ants with a magnifying glass), because all life has a purpose and a right to exist as it is. Despite what I just said, I do believe that abortion is a good thing for those who choose to go that route for whatever reason the woman has. And it should be solely her decision.
Now, what does all this mean relative to Humans and God? If we are, as I say, individualizations of God, then inherent in our being are all the attributes and properties of God (leading to the expression that we are Children of God). Follow the logic. If a single cell in our body contains the pattern of a complete body (cloning), then we are nothing but clones of God with one distinct flaw: the lack of the realization that we have all that power, all that intelligence, and all that universal presence; we are intimately entwined with the whole of the Universe because the Universe is in us. However, to make a point, individually we are not God anymore than a drop of water is the ocean. The myth of Jesus Christ is supposedly one man who had such a self-realization. The promise is that if he could achieve that realization, then anyone can, and in the Bible he said as much: Know ye not that ye are gods? [1 Corinthians 3:16]
I say that Jesus Christ is a myth because there is no archeological evidence that he ever existed (see also this); there is not one piece of written material about Jesus at the time he supposedly lived (there are several items that allegedly prove his existence: the shroud, an ossuary, a carving of his face, etc.) We have verifiable evidence of the life of Caesar written when Caesar was alive, but none about Jesus. And even the story of Jesus with Pontius Pilot have never been verified in any writings about that magistrate. Everything written about Jesus was done long after he lived. And we are to believe that such writings were inspired by God. If we are to believe that, then we should also believe in the veracity and authorship of A Course In Miracles and other such current writings.
I feel sad for those who have set Jesus above themselves. They are giving up all the power, the presence, and the intelligence of what they really are.
After committing acts of murder (religious wars) and sexual immorality (priests sexually violating children), how does religion live with its conscience after such an egregious violation of morality? Simply by saying that God forgives all. So then why shouldn't a priest be forgiven his sins and be allowed to have a change of heart? Using that logic, all individuals committing immoral and illegal acts should be treated the same as a priest.
Such acts are not limited to religious leaders. Teachers at a school who exploit some of their young charges are buffered by the principal and staff to actively bury the events rather than report it. This has happened, and it is still happening. In 1968, in England, it took several mothers filing a complaint against a teacher and relentlessly applying pressure on the school board before that teacher was ousted for his acts of physical brutality - caning students for minor infractions. He did what he did because it was done to him and he believed it to be proper punishment. This protection of children has evolved to the point that a child can report their parents for what they perceive as cruel and unusual physical or mental abuse, leading the slogan that it shouldn't hurt to be a child. But this does not remedy the child's behavior, it only teaches the child how to get away with such behavior. If we intend to live by that slogan, then a paradigm shift in correction is required to effect a remedy for infractions. Such a shift would involve a cure instead of a bandaid. A bandaid would be a fine or incarceration. A cure would be getting to the root cause and correcting the belief. This does not require a psychologist or psychiatrist. The method known as The Healing Codes could be the answer.
The saying, "All is fair in love and war" is the excuse given for religion and politics to wander away from the opposite, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
Religion, politics, and the lure of fame and power are what keep people from the realization of what they really are. More accurately, it is our own willingness to avoid critical thinking.
--
No comments:
Post a Comment