YOUR Religion

But I've changed! Although, your choice of the words spiritual polarization are interesting. What do you mean?

 

Okay, you got me curious...

I believe in a Dark Side and the opposite in the spiritual realm (as do all evangelical/charismatic Christians). And I believe I've definitely experienced that as well as I've mentioned.

The last time we discussed this you felt that virtually all spiritual beings could be trusted from what I remember or at least that there was not a polarization.

 

Allow me to concede that 'evil' is real and part of reality. Then let me define evil as denial of love, and a denial of the love that a living being IS. Then let me suggest that by denying the love that a being IS, it he/she takes the first step to embellishing an illusion. The choice then is not between good and evil, the choice is simply to choose reality or not. If reality is that we are love, then anything else is an illusion WITH CONSEQUENCeS.

So I'm suggesting the evil is derivative, not primary. In the begining there was only good...and freedom of choice. There was not a Good Force and a Dark Force, Good Side vs Dark Side.

I will posit that love has no opposites, such that evil is NOT the opposite of love but rather a consumate denial of love into an ever more embellished illusion.

Having no opposites, there is no polarization necessary. I suggest that polarization is a consequence of a denial of love. Polarization is a product of the way the mind works, needing two fixed points in order to perform its logic. Anywhere there is dualistic mindset, look for clues of a denial of love, and the love that we are.

If we are love, and instead call ourselves sinners, look for dualistic formulas to embellish an illusion. The only sin a being of love can commit is to deny it is love. This was the original sin, the rest is the density of illusion and its cause and effect consequences along a continuum of pain.

Does this match your viewpoint?


If this makes no sense at the moment, I would be glad to embellish it!

JohnnyK

 

There's a lot of things we agree on, which is a nice change. Believe it or not, I don't really want to chap anyone's arse. But I believe the implication of what you mean by "denial of love" is that any being can through self-effort and positive choices work his way back toward that being that IS as you put it.

And that's, I believe, where we differ...

 

So we differ about the road back?

I like that song by Enigma, "Return To Innocence". It's been a while. Could you remind me how that is done from your perspective?

Would not an affirmation of such a reality shorten the road back? In other words, should we not cease the original cause, and reverse the subsequent process of denial? Why would the route back be different from the route out?

Ah, do you suppose the route back was made easier and more accessible by someone?

JohnnyK

 

The problem is that I don't believe there was a "road out". Does that make sense?

 

You mean in the sense that the ideal I had described never existed?

Perhaps a reference to the garden of eden would be helpful. Was there a road out of the garden?


Thanks for the insights.

JohnnyK

 

No, I’m just pointing out that the traditional Christian viewpoint is that man, prior to his rebirth and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, is literally blinded to reaching God. In other words, man wasn’t “innocent” as a child or teen and then took a "journey to the Dark Side” – he/she was born that way. I thought that was the journey you were referring to, but maybe that's not even what you were talking about?

 

I think we should follow Elijahs protocol for testing Gods. This from 1 Kings 18:23 Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: 18:24 And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.



We can pit priest from various religions and sects agianst one another and see who can get the holy barbaque going. For balance we can have a control pit set up with no prayer but by using science and purely naturalistic methods(ie matches and lighter fluid) and see who wins. If God could do it once there is no reason he can't do it again.

 

Somehow, I think that introducing logic and rationality to a religious thread is tantamount to flaming. On the other hand, we are talking about a barbecue...