Lately I've been trying to tackle Gnosticism -- not so much as an approach to spirituality, which probably wouldn't shock anyone around here too badly, but as an approach to metaphysics and cosmology. Whereas Liberalism and Literalism clash over the historical and scientific claims of Chrisitanity, Orthodoxy and Gnosticism clash over the metaphysical and epistemological foundations of Christianity -- and it's a much more interesting battle I think. Gnosticism takes most of the foundational narratives of the Bible and thoroughly inverts their ordinary meaning -- about as good an example of a Hegelian antithesis as you could ask for. This leads to some startling interpretations of the creation and fall stories in Genesis, to say the least.

Anyway, I'm not so much interested in adopting it as a philosophy as it is, but I'm captivated by it as a photographic negative of Christian orthodoxy. It is in many fascinating ways the Jungian shadow of Christianity, preserving some important but partial truths in the language of myths and dreamlike images, until Christianity's orthodox "ego" is able to integrate them into its religious consciousness.

One such important but partial truth, it seems to me of late, is that ignorance, suffering, and death are part of the Cosmos by design -- contrary to conservative Christianity, which sees them as the result of human sin -- and that they are malignant spiritual forces -- contrary to liberal Christianity, which sees them as merely neutral features of a lawful scientific universe. This is one of the aforementioned inversions of the ordinary meaning of a Christian (actually Jewish) teaching. When I attempt to synthesize the Orthodox and Gnostic views on this, what comes into view for me is the notion of a G-d whose love is so profound, that G-d literally divested Himself of all knowledge and power of the one true Source, issuing forth in a universe veiled in ignorance and suffering, in order to make genuine choice, love, and awakening possible. "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Corinthians 5:21)

So that's where my brain waves have been lately. For more detailed discussions of gnostic views than I could possibly provide here, check out http://www.gnosis.org.

Thinking like this you just might create some disorder in the universe. That's ok. Some are of the belief that truly creative acts and concepts are the ultimate form of symmetry breaking. It is definitely the road less traveled.

Of course this is the essence of some of the great religions that were created before Christianity. Zoroastrianism (Persia) and Buddhism (India) would be prominent examples. Experts believe that they both had a profound influence upon the formative philosophies of the early Christian church.

Pagels' book, Adam Eve and the Serpent also addresses some of the reasons that cosmic dualism was pretty much excluded from the Judeo-Christian systems. Spiritual philosophies expressed by the current Dalai Lama are also enlightening to a Buddhist viewpoint on suffering. My personal take is that Christianity mainly made dualism a more "abstract" subject of its philosophical foundations in order to facilitate trade and business activity.

Remember, the cosmos is the light and the darkness together. The darkness is much more prevalent than the light. It could be that Star Wars is the best set of mythical materials to come along in about 3,000 years. Lucas knew what he was doing when he asked Joseph Campbell for advice on story lines.

flow....

Hi fred,


I just began reading a book on Gnosticism by Hoeller. The first chapter was very enlightening. I look forward to hearing more of your take on this subject.


Godspeed,

Jerryb

I got this off the site you posted Fred. Thanks for the posting.

The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene
The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. ...
www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm

This is my take on all this

As we perceive pure consciousness (God the Father) pervading all things, we understand more clearly that God has absolute control over all creation, and that each individual is already one with God, inseparable from Him. People are not aware of this because they are immersed in creation and the idea of materiality. They are deceived into thinking that disease (not being at ease, dis-ease) is real, and that the devil and sin are everywhere. Until a higher view is cultivated through prayer and purification of thought it will certainly appear that the devil can control our lives, but this is a false and temporary view because under God there can’t be a broken harmony in creation.

I like this philosophy because

When we know the truth that God is omnipresent and that there is nothing else but pure consciousness (God) , we feel at ease and yield to His divine consciousness. When our souls are enlightened with pure consciousness, we don’t attempt to control others by condemning them or manipulating them with the devil because we understand that it is through love that God governs everybody and all of creation. The personal desire to control others comes by mistakenly believing that man is evil and indicates a distrust of God’s ability to govern His own creation. If we worship God by basing our thoughts and our actions on Him who is the strongest force, then the devil has no power. When we see God as one, it will have a beneficial influence upon our minds, our bodies and all of creation because we will be moved to great clarity and good actions. We will become a clear-seeing soul, when we refuse to tolerate evil.

http://thinkunity.com

I see this as representing some different concepts than purely the spiritual aspect that you see soma. I believe that when you look at this "saying" of Jesus it seems that he is talking about the intentional crossing of sacred boundaries, and what may be the consequences of that action. He says,"...but it is you who makes sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery...."

Note that the author of this passage is careful to separate the act of adultery from the act of making sin. The making of the sin is the "doing the things" part. And this is further clarified in that the making of sin is related to doing things that are "like" the nature of adultery. To me the nature of adultery is not the physical acts involved in sexual license, rather the violation of the societal mores that constitute the strictures of a society. To me that means making intentional choices that result in the violating of the sacred vows and accompanying boundaries in personal relations that denotes one's territory inside of a marriage

The roots of these concepts reside in the Sumerian and Babylonian ciivilizations. Whenever a wall, boundary structure, or foundation of a structure was laid, there were usually votive images of the prevalent G-d placed under the stone, brickwork, or gateposts. This seems to indicate how highly the ancients valued the beginnings of the creation of sacred structures. Also, sexual prostitution was a fixture of the religious practices of many of the societies of the region.

Once each year every wife was required to place herself in the courtyard of the temple and offer herself for sale in prostitution to the first person who made an offer to her. Usually the offer was only for a token amount by rule. After this exchange and ensuing activiies, the wife went back to her home and marriage without recrimination. There were also priests and priestesses resident in the temples to provide instruction and sexual relief to members of the society in return for an appropriate offering. James Micheners book, The Source, provides a description of this practice in ancient Palestine.

So I guess my interpretation of all this, since like it or not, the OT has its cultural roots in the societies of the ancient Near East, it is not necessarily the physical act that creates sin, or the missing of the mark; it is the volitional entering into activities that take an individual across a boundary that represents a moral stricture of a society that makes it a sinful act. You could also surmise that in crossing forbidden boundaries, society and individuals automatically open themselves up to the malignant forces of the cosmos that are there to cause suffering and destruction, as Fred so accurately identified them elsewhere here.

flow....

A friend of mine is a Gnostic Bishop here in Indiana. If you ever want to discuss these issues with a very smart fellow, get me your e-mail address and I will ask him to contact you.

Thanks for all the posts so far. I better get caught up before I fall too far behind.

Flow: I am in fact just about finished with Pagels' Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. I was hoping it would get more into the "Gnostic improvisations" than it actually does; as it is, it's mostly an exploration of the evolution of ideas about sexuality and freedom -- conceived both socially and metaphysically. Rightly so, Augustine figures heavily in any discussion of these topics, and the more time goes by, I'm finding a rather large intersection between Augustine's and my own beliefs about freedom -- despite the fact that his whole mechanism of semen as the carrier of original sin, to say nothing of how that all plugs into his pessimism about sexuality, is wildly off the mark. Still, his view of Adam as a "corporate personality" in whom the human race sinned is actually quite metaphysically profound -- leading naturally to a view of Christ as a corporate (indeed cosmic) personality in whom the Cosmos is restored.

As far as Star Wars goes, I have to respectfully disagree, and instead recommend The Matrix for that honor.

Soma: I think your idea about sin being ultimately unreal to G-d in G-d's ultimate unity is exactly correct. I was seeing this same idea in Jim Marion's Putting on the Mind of Christ, for anyone who's seen or read this. (If not, think Ken Wilber meets Christian spirituality.) However, I think there still needs to be room for the distinction between blindly acting out of ignorance because one has not seen the truth, and willfully acting out of ignorance after one has seen the truth. While, etymologically, "sin" can refer generically to any kind of "missing the mark," I prefer to use it in the second case to denote a willful act in violation of what one knows to be true. I think this fits with what Flow was saying in his response.

Happy Birthday Jerry!

I've flipped through that book quite a bit, and will probably pick it up eventually. The gnosis.org site is actually mostly Hoeller's articles anyway. He has also written a book called The Gnostic Jung. It should be fairly obvious from my original post on this topic that I'm a big Jung fan.

Of course you already knew that much of Augustine's approach to and opinions regarding sexual mores were shaped by his heavy and constant physical conversations with older women as a teen. Wonder which one changed his attitudes?
An act of G-d do you think?

flow....

It's such an incredible tapestry of images and ideas, far richer -- and much more subversive -- than the flat scientific reductionism that characterizes so much "liberal" Christianity. At the same time, there is no canonical "Gnostic View," which can be frustrating if you're looking for something to attack.

Gnosticism is by far a richer tapestry, and so much more diverse in its applicability than the approach of orthodoxy. You could say that it supports an underlying unified vision regarding Jesus and his mystical mission among us. This would be the Jungian aspect to the mysteries. A potentially subversive and disordering vision and set of beliefs concerning the core of Christianity.

However, there are those individuals in all societies that MUST have order and stability all around them in order to justify their own existence. One might call this the Freudian approach.

The restriction of the knowledge of the mysteries is the predominant philosophical approach of orthodoxy. This orthodox approach to Christianity was actively created and promoted over the centuries to balance the mystical richness of the Jungian visions of unity that are suggested by many of the Gnostic texts. Without the balancing influences of orthodoxy, anarchy would always have been a much greater danger in Christian societies over the past 2,000 years. After all, Jesus reputedly said that he had thrown fire upon the earth. What could be more threatening to those who insist upon order?

Of course the greatest danger here is that very strict orthodoxy can, and has, morphed into dictatorial and facist structures that have been brutally used to suppress and subjugate mystical visions and interpretations of Jesus' work among us. One might even say that such repression is alive and well in supposedly "free" nations today.

What is the best way? Of course the truth is the best way!

What is the truth? The truth is ALWAYS the most believable story.

What is the best story? That's being decided "for" us by "free market policies" these days, and not "by" us as it should be; but then, it's my belief that the success of The DaVinci Code speaks huge volumes about the "longing for truth" out there among a huge and silenced majority.

flow....

As you're so fond of pointing out, order/stability is one (necessary) pole in a dynamic tension that exists within all complex processes. The disorder/instability pole would be constantly ripping everything apart otherwise. Within Christianity, Orthodoxy and Gnostcism represent a kind of chaotic tension within which Western spirituality and philosophy play out. Orthodoxy doesn't recognize Gn. as a valid form of Christianity, of course, but neither does the ego recognize the shadow as its disowned self.


Right, various forms of structure had to be in place over time, in order to develop the various pieces of the puzzle which lead to an integrated view of reality. See, we have the same basic understanding of the scientific process.

Fred

Congratulations to us!! Now let's hope that others join in.

You da MAN!!!!! Got to go to bed now. Wish I could legally do drugs.

flow....

Not for this, you don't.

In the human phase of evolution man is endowed with the attributes of free will and free choice. The 'doer I' or ego can choose to serve either the mind and body or the pure consciousness of that particular individual. Man is not a mechanical individual, but is left alone to discover his 'pure I' or connection with the whole (God). Man cannot be forced to love God or his higher self because to love one has to be free so to love God one has to love God with his own volition. The element of freedom in love is due to the fact that the love we feel is from God. It is His love that we love Him with not our ego’s love to give. We have no love because God created everything; it all comes from pure consciousness so the love that we love God with is similar to shining a mirror at the sun because the light that we reflect on the mirror of our minds comes from the sun. The point I am trying to make is so long as man feels himself to be the ego; he is depriving himself of love and freedom. This very sense of freedom in the ego is what ultimately leads the ego to the discovery that there is more to life. Evolution waits for man to discover the natural laws that guide him to pure consciousness and our relationship to the whole. So we tetor tator between the individual and collective consciousness. I guess it is all fun.

This is dead on, soma! You've perfectly summarized the meaning of I John 4:19: "We love, because He first loved us."

When Paul repeatedly says that there is nothing good in us except what comes from God, this isn't neurotic self-loathing -- it's a recognition that everything that exists participates in the being of God. Yet this knowledge -- the experiential knowledge, the gnosis, not the conceptual idea of it -- is veiled from us so that we may seek it and find. And having found it, live fully in the One and in the Many...

Thanks for this post.

If the "L Word" (love) is indeed the underlying, Jungian, archetypal, unifying theme of the Gnostic sects, then why were they doomed to destruction and extinction in the 2nd and 3rd centuries?

Why was orthodoxy so dogged and thorough in its pursuit and abolishment of this set of beliefs?

Why is love such a threatening emotion and organizational concept to certain individuals?

Why are we all so confused so often these days in sexual relations even when love is the reason-d-etre? Is the concept of "agape" love being extinguished by today's beliefs and replaced with sexual pleasures that turn into business arrangements?

If G-d is indeed love and we, his/her creations, are reflective in nature of that experience, why do we treat each other so cautiously, gingerly, and fearfully?

Could it be because of serpents? What are the serpents? We activate the primitive parts of our brains (the parts that extend back in our animal lineage to the serpent times) when sexual drives take us over. They exist mythologically as being representative of ancient revered wisdom on the Asian continent. They existed as the supreme being in past central American cultures as the feathered, rainbow serpent.

I am asking so many questions and that is essentially a disordering activity, but I just thought it was appropriate to indulge myself in some metaphysical mythologizing!

flow....

I don't think they necessarily had it out for Love, per se. Gn. was just a bit too freeform and ill-defined, at a time when definition was of paramount importance -- and I don't mean that as a slam. To make matters worse, where Gn. was not ill-defined, it insisted on a fundamentally flawed cosmos, which is at odds with both Judaic and Christian conceptions of cosmology. (As it turns out, the truth is probably more subtle and interesting than all of these conceptions.) As a system unto itself, I think Gn. does have some insurmountable problems; but rather than integrate and correct them, Orthodoxy chose to bury them and deny their existence during its process of self-definition. Again, not a slam. This is how evolutionary development proceeds. It's just so damned easy to get stuck.


A different, but extremely good, question. If I had to answer off the top of my head, I'd say that real love requires intense self-examination and self-understanding -- to truly know another, one must let oneself be truly known. Love is a fire that consumes all the comforting illusions of self; beware people who peddle the sentimental love of God.


I've created a monster.

That's the "issue" I have with gnosticism overall. I don't believe this universe, this world, this existence is "fallen" - not in the way traditional Christianity (Augustine?) means it, and definitely not in the way gnosticism means it.

As I've watched "Lost Christianities" with Ehrman, I have been flabbergasted at the views towards life that the gnostics had. I've read a fair amount of "pro-gnostic" books that never touched on these views. They portray gnosticism as "fuzzy bunny mystical love" rather than discussing the asceticism and loathing of the flesh that many gnostics had.

I'm not saying that there aren't truths to be found in the gnostic writings and in gnostic philosophy, but I don't think the average person that embraces gnosticism (ala The DaVinci Code) really knows what it is they think they love.

I don't think the early church should have suppressed these writings however. People should be allowed to make up their own minds.

Really? Ignorance, suffering, and death, are simply part of the wondrous natural cycle of life, and it's just the ego that creates the illusion of separateness? If the universe is so shimmeringly radiant, why do we virtually universally "fall" from childlike union into selfishness and separateness? Why does the very fabric of the universe around us seem to tempt us to embrace this illusion?

Gnosticism dares to answer that the universe is itself already "fallen" from union with God -- or at least from awareness of it -- that the ignorance and illusion are part of what makes it what it is, not something inculturated, or socialized, or learned, but your cosmic inheritance for being born on this plane of existence, at all. Now, that may need to be qualified in certain ways, but I've still got to respect it for being willing to deal so unflinchingly and systematically with these aspects of reality.

Have you read Wilber's "Pre/Trans Fallacy," or his book-length treatment in The Eye of The Spirit? Here's the introduction: http://twm.co.nz/kwilb_eyspir.html. The last section ("Now, there is indeed a falling away from Godhead ...") sums up what I'm getting at about as well as anything could.


Well, what philosophy can't you say that about?

There were most definitely sects within Gn. that naively regarded all matter as evil, and all spirit as good, and thus treated their bodies with abject hatred. As the movement matured, the more perceptive philosophers, like Valentinus -- who actually had a pretty good shot at becoming pope at one point -- grew to understand the light/dark polarity in a much more nuanced and subtle way. On the whole, Gn. ascetisicm was probably on par with the asceticism of orthodox spirituality. I think it's really difficult, from our cultural perspective, to understand what drove asceticism in pretty much all forms of spirituality up until modern times (17th/18th century, enlightenment, etc.). This was not just a western phenomenon, by any means... Anyway, we're almost unable to view it in any other way than as bodily hatred. The writings of the Desert Fathers (and Mothers), for example, make it abundantly clear that it was primarily about self-examination and self-understanding. The modern practices of poverty and chastity, in Christian and Buddhist monastics, still carry on that tradition today -- as well as people who practice Lent beyond giving up TV or chocolate.

I didn't say the cycle of life is "wondrous" nor did I say the universe is "shimmeringly radiant".

The whole reason I put the word "issue" in quotes was to "soften" it. It's really not an issue, but I didn't know what other word to use.

Also, the reason I put the word "fallen" in quotations was to highlight that I don't agree with the standard definition of "fallen" - I don't think humans were created perfect, unable to "sin", and then somehow sinned, and fell from grace (the standard Christian belief).

I actually lean towards the idea that Iraneaus had (as I understand it, I haven't read him) - that we are here to "learn" (nutshell version).


I appreciate that gnosticism dares to answer that the universe is fallen from union with God. I wasn't trying to say that it didn't.

I was trying to say, (as I said above), that I don't think that humans were created materially and spiritually perfect and then fell from perfection. I also don't think the universe is fundamentally flawed (created imperfect by a flawed god).

I do think that the universe was purposely set up to distance us from God. That was actually my sig line for awhile. I think we may be on the same page here (hence my confusion).

PS - The whole reason I chose the handle "Aletheia" was because of the idea of kenosis ... that creation was made in such a way as to make us forget God, forget the truth, forget knowledge and be immersed in "illusion" ... that we (or God if you prefer) emptied ourselves to live in this plane ... we drank of the river lethe and emptied ourselves. A-lethe-ia is the process of remembering, of un-emptying ourselves, of finding truth, of finding light.

I know, I was exaggerating for effect.


We're definitely in agreement that humans weren't created materially and spiritually perfect, as traditional Christianity claims. As for being created by a literal "demiurge" or flawed god, as many ancient gnostics would have held, no, I don't believe this. But taken symbolically, the idea of the universe being the product of a more limited -- or self-limited -- creative impulse is starting to really make sense to me. The idea of God, in full knowledge and power, engineering a world of pain and suffering for us to awaken in, seems frankly cruel; but God utterly emptying himself, generating the very conditions of our existence out of his own supreme self-sacrifice... that's astounding. Talk about a God who is with us in our suffering, a God who upholds the downtrodden.

Maybe this is a different way of expressing what you mean anyway.

Definitely on the same page there.

Actually, the idea of God self-limiting himself in order to create and relate is something I've had rattling around in my head for a long time. It's where my philosophical "open-view" comes from (as opposed to "biblical open-view").



I don't think God purposefully engineered a world of pain (I understand Irenaeus [and Jung?] did), but at the same time the "buck has to stop" with God because I do believe God has foreknowledge of all potential outcomes, and so knew full well what could come of such an emptying.

So when I say the universe was made to be the way it is, I don't mean to say that God created and forordained murderers or rapists or earthquakes to test us ... but that I believe God is the Ultimate Source, that there is nothing "beyond" God.

I believe WE have engineered a world of pain. I think we, the universe, God, are all "morally dual" (and by process of balance "neutral")(there is that yin/yang thing again). We have free will (otherwise God would be the direct author of evil) and that many choose death instead of life.

I think life is equal parts Grace (knowing that God loves us and nothing can seperate us from that) and "works" (not in the "law' sense, but picking up our cross, emptying ourselves, loving ourselves and then loving others as we do ourselves, and loving God). It is by this process of kenosis (of "works") that we learn (ala soulmaking, ala Iraneaus, ala Theosis).



I found this earlier today and your words just now seem very serendipitous:

PS - And what's utterly weird is that about a year ago I was discussing "creation ex nihilo" with my hubby and I literally said to him that the only way I could conceive of it happening would be if God created a "hole" in himself and put us there, because is there any "where" that God is not, for him to put us there instead?

These observations are precisely why issues of scale are so important in discerning and understanding the universe as possibly an "intelligent project" of G-d.

The example I like to use is the scale of a hydrogen atom. Think of a bowling ball perched atop the Sears Tower as the nucleus of the atom. The atom's electron would be a BB whizzing around it at a distence of 19 miles. From this it should be evident that the material realities around us are mostly filled with space and only appear to be solid. Lots of nooks and cranies for spiritual beings to sneak around in and and create new stuff.

Then there are little hints and clues in the ancient tales such as the belief among the early Hebrews in "Tzim-Tzum". This means that G-d creates from the nothingness and then leaves the stage before his/her creation is allowed to begin its cycles of existence.

Anyone who does creative work will tell you that the process is alot like giving birth. It comes forth from the light and darkness of one's soul, and after it is in the outside world as a creation in its own right, it may still be edited, touched-up, revised to an extent; but, a spiritual content exists in it from that time on to inspire those who partake of its meanings to also partake in a portion of the spiritual substance of its creator.

Monster huh? GRRRRR!!!

flow....

That is correct, but there is another important difference, with respect to the buck having to stop with God. In the case of God foreordaining murderers, rapists, and earthquakes to separate and/or test us, God still remains essentially outside of us. However, if the cosmos is truly a divine self-emptying, then God also experiences each and every moment of suffering immediately and directly in us -- in such a way that God doesn't have the knowledge of divine infinity as a comfort. The "problem of evil" looks a lot different when God takes the whole of universal horror and suffering on himself in the process.


This is actually one interpretation of the meaning of the demiurge in Gn. cosmology. The demiurge represents the very same attributes that characterize "fallen humanity": power, competitiveness, jealousy, self-assertion, cool detatchment, etc. Ayn Rand's self-made hero, basically. Not that there attributes are necessarily "evil" per se -- there is a certain egalitarian impartiality to them, for example -- but the point is that they perceive a separated world, and act on it as such. When Gn. claims that we humans and "our world" are created by this being, I see that in one way as a symbolic statement about who we are and where we "come from," psychologically speaking. We've seen the demiurge, and he is us. But even more than that, it suggests that this archetype transcends merely human psychology to grasp something truly cosmic about our situation.

I still think we are pretty much on the same page (but I could be wrong).

What I meant about God having foreknowledge was from the perspective PRIOR TO the emptying. Unless you mean that there wasn't ever a time when God hadn't emptied himself? (A Process view I think.)

Is God completely "exhausted" by emptying himself in your view (pantheism) or is there still transcendant mind?

Do we lose ourselves completely when we go back to the source or do we join in the dance of God?



Ah yes. I believe the "rulers, world authorities, principalities in high places" refers to the same thing and that Jesus conquered them on the cross. It wasn't just literal persons or institutions that he conquered, but the very situation of mankind.

PS - I guess that answers the question of pantheism or panentheism actually.

Yes, substantially, eerily, so! That's why it's possible to nit-pick such fine points with you, because we're of such similar mind about the generalities.




Ah ha! But time came into existence WITH the emptying. Chew on that one...


No, G-d remains transcendent and inexhaustible; but veiled in manifestation. If you're asking whether the infinite G-d peers into the world of time and observes, or maybe even influences, it... Well, do you pray and act? And did you think it was you?




Well, I'm not much of a dancer.....

Actually, that's a completely different question. My immediate thought is that we lost ourselves to come here, so I suppose we'd gain ourselves to go back. But of course you mean do we lose our personality, right? I think so; but my certainty on that one hovers between 49% and 51% on a daily basis! I have faith that union with G-d will make up for whatever I sacrifices I make along the way.


Indeed!

To be more specific concerning your question, God is self-limited with respect to the cosmos, but not in God's essential nature, which is inexhaustible. Don't know if that helps in any way.

Ahhhhh! LOL! And here I've been thinking I keep missing your point because you seem to be saying the opposite of everything I say, even when I think I'm agreeing with you.


Crap I hate this one. Pppbbbll

Hmmm. Was God timeless or has God always been eternally temporal? Is there even such a "thing" as time?

I think it's a given that God is "in time" now, but how could there be a "time" when he was not? What I mean is: If "x" is the state of God's being timeless (and "full") and "y" is the state of God emptying himself (giving birth to time), then non-emptiness came prior to emptiness in a sequence.

I say time doesn't exist. It's just the way we measure change. It's easier and it doesn't give me migraines. (Kidding) That's why I think God IS change. In essence, God IS time.



Brat!

Am I me AND God, or am I JUST God?

Did God empty himself to "experience for experiences sake" and there is no us? Or did God empty himself by "creating" us and when we "go back" we are both God and us?

I'm not worried about loss of personality or ego, but I do long for union. I think the very nature of God (being emptied to create us) creates that longing within us?

Yes, there is. (See below.) God is eternal -- that is, God infinitely transcends time -- in God's essential nature, but temporal with respect to the cosmos. This is part of the separation involved in the divine self-limitation.


Prior in an ontological sequence, but not a chronological sequence: strictly speaking, it's incoherent to talk about anything coming "before time" in a chronological sequence.

It sounds like you're trying to imagine a chronological sequence of events wherein God empties himself into the temporal realm; hence the question whether God is in time "now" as opposed to.... "before"? But the cosmos is a self-contained spatio-temporal manifestation -- it's unrelated to God's essential nature -- or to any other possible spatio-temporal manifestation -- as far as space and time are concerned. The emptying of God into this universe has nothing to do with where God is "now" in relation to time, because there is no "now" outside of time! Beyond the cosmos we can talk about logical relationship, but not chrono-logical relationship.


Time indeed is the way we measure change, but God is not time. Time is a contraction of eternity -- a self-emptying of eternity, the same way the cosmos is a self-emptying of God. Eternity, of course, isn't a far-off future time; it is the state of being that both negates the separateness of temporality, and gives the character of true presence to each moment of time.


Keep in mind that, in a trinitarian model, God is dynamic, related being. The cosmos -- and by extension, we -- are individual expressions of the infinite depth of relatedness at the heart of God's being. You say "JUST God" as though this were somehow a limited form of something. This is like asking whether the value of x is infinity plus one, or JUST infinity!

" We've seen the demiurge, and he is us "

Pogo would love this.

It is interesting to note that the ancient Sumerians ( following the Ubaidians as the beginners of civilization in what is now Iraq) believed that the hidden Gods were known as "the people".

flow....

Right. My point exactly.



No, not really. I was trying to say that time is a way that change is verbalized, discussed, comprehended and that if for God one thing was one way and then was another way, then there was "change" for God. WE would say that x happened before y because that is how WE talk. I'm saying that perhaps NOW is all there IS and that time is just as much of an illusion as our seperateness from God.



I don't know what to say to that. I'm trying to express my yearning for a union, theosis-like relationship with God and I don't feel I'm using the best language to express it. I capitalized "just" because, based on prior conversations, I thought you would get what I was trying to say. I certainly didn't mean "just God" as if it were a limited form of something.

I don't find meaning in monism or pantheism. Perhaps that is just my hang-up. I believe God created life in order to share it with us. I know God didn't need to and because of the Trinity was complete, but I believe God wanted to. I think God enjoys giving so much that he wanted to move "outside" himself to do so and so created sentient life.

Sorry I'm so touchy. There is only so much nit-picking I can take.

Fair enough. I just get all excited when these topics come 'round again.

I'm extremely excited to talk about these things. I was expressing that to my husband this morning and that I hoped the conversation could continue.

I do get frustrated with bulletin boards as a medium for conversation. It's not helping that Opera (as a web browser) doesn't like ipbhost's interface and makes it difficult to deal with the formatting tools. It's easier to put things in ALL CAPS or in "quotes" instead of italicizing, and I think it makes the emphasis come out wrong.

I also don't deal with "Devil's Advocates" well. Just ask my hubby. It's his favorite role too.

Yeah... I generally don't read anything personal into formatting markup. I can usually tell by a person's words when they're losing patience with me. I've heard that there are people out there who become very hurt when somebody types to them in all caps, because they feel yelled at. I think there's a little bit of a lost grip on reality going on there.


Silly men, we are!

Ok, apparently I STILL haven't successfully convinced you that I'm not a monist. This is going to involve some weird verbal twists -- kind of like the whole time thing -- so hang on.



I would characterize monism as the belief that God is a being -- note the presence of the article "a" -- from whom the cosmos proceeds, and in whom it exists. Monism is oneness in the numerical sense: the sense in which one is one less than two, one more than zero, etc. In this conception, there could -- logically, numerically -- be other beings, or none at all. It just so happens that there is exactly one, and no more than one, being in the universe, and that being is God. Conceptually, this view could happily underlie either pantheism -- God and the universe are materially co-existent; or panentheism -- the universe is less than God, but wholly contained within the being of God. And assuming I have defined monism correctly, it is a conception I wholeheartedly reject.

The problem goes right back to the article I noted above: God is not an anything. God is not one in the numerical or quantitative sense, but in the sense of being ontologically undivided: not two --> nondual. The "oneness" that applies to God is not the same oneness that applies to individual beings; God completely transcends the kind of unity and multiplicity that apply to individual beings. The idea of a individual being "other than" God is a categorical confusion -- apples and oranges, infinity plus one. Individual beings don't exist side-by-side with God; we are a completely different order of reality.

To sum up: in a nondual conception, when I say that individual beings exist in God, or are expressions of the divine nature, I don't mean that there is an individual divine being in whom all other lesser individual beings only appear to exist. I mean that out of God's "beyond being" proceed the very notions of being, of individuality and multiplicity -- and therefore actual, real, concrete, distinct beings.

Now, to field an objection I can already hear coming. The God I've described sounds awfully far removed from us. How can we possibly relate to such unsurpassable infinity? The only answer I can give is: we don't. We can't -- God empties himself out for us, so that we can find him on our level of reality.

Anyway, that's how I make sense out of all this. Hopefully it helps to understand where I'm coming from somewhat.

I've certainly never felt like you were yelling, but I did want to make sure you didn't think I was.

Actually, based on our past conversations, I've never been quite sure. I don't remember you definitively saying "Nay" but maybe you did. Thanks for clearing it up. Hopefully for the last time.

That's how I understand monism as well.

Agreed.

OK. I think I agree. I think my comment earlier about God creating a "hole" (symbolic) in order to manifest might fit in here?

Actually I was thinking just the opposite. Since God is transcendant I believe that the whole cosmos is within his "view". ALSO, being immanent, God relates to us on this level of reality as well. I think that is the truth of the incarnation, the cross and the resurrection.

Heh. Well, I have said "Nay," but probably never backed it up well enough to cement it in your mind.

Incidentally, the conventional model of God also views God as an individual being -- who in this case, just happens to decide to create a world of other individual beings. This view is false for the same reason monism is, which is that it requires the concepts of individuality and multiplicity to be ontologically prior to God, which is by definition, impossible.

How can people not love philosophical theology as much as I do?!


Yes, I meant to tell you I liked that analogy, but I forgot. God creates a space "within" himself to give birth to the world. But of course this "in," as you said, is symbolic, and can't be thought of spatially, or chronologically, or in any other conventional sense of "in" that we know how to talk about!


The world is within God's transcendental "view," yes, but in the sense of a direct causal relationship with God as transcendent, I'm not sure whether or how that works -- so it's nothing I'd get into a big argument over.

On infinite and finite, I see the infinite in the finite (in-finite). I think the personal story of Adam and Eve explains the tendency within the universe to disperse. A centrifugal motion radiating from the nucleus is what causes the worldly consciousness to appear to separate from God. The world in itself is a temporary reality because it is in perpetual change without much meaning or consistency. The objects and things existing in it are separated in time and space and are changing from one moment to the next. Therefore, the microcosm apart from the macrocosm is nothing but when it knows the macrocosm, it is reality itself, constant and full of being. The feeling that we fell from pure consciousness and loss bliss is due to the separation from our internal existence. This has caused the present era of confusion where everything is divided, not centered, and separated from the whole or pure consciousness. This can be related to the story of Adam and Eve leaving the Garden of Eden or the unit consciousness separating from pure consciousness. No need to worry though because everyone will be delivered from this separation. As the inner light unfolds, it delivers the outer life from bondage. Everything comes from within so when the inner consciousness knows freedom, the outer life knows freedom also, and will reflect it through health, happiness and success. Evolution is working for our good and will bring about this knowledge that everything starts from within and works its way outward. All things even that which we call evil is paying tribute to pure consciousness, showing us the way. Suffering teaches us a lesson that causes us to resist making more mistakes. We just need to learn how to gain knowledge from our experiences, to go inward and to experience everything.

Since Adam was created in the image and likeness of God, the principles of consciousness are contained within man/woman in ideal equilibrium. The tree of knowledge of good and evil puzzled Adam, and he lost the spiritual connection with the whole. Adam saw everything through the veil of his individual ego so he saw things menacing him and separate from God because the balance of the universe became blurred. After leaving the Garden of Eden and the state of pure consciousness, Adam tried to regain his original state by creating his own balance. This creation of individual consciousness is not reality because it is a state of isolation on the physical level, not a working together in harmony with the whole. The unit consciousness focused outwardly on the physical level, turns out to be the first phase of evolution while the second phase can be called involution.

Involution would be directing our thoughts to happiness rather than unhappiness by looking at the whole picture. The solution then is not to condemn one negative over another because each is necessary and a vital force for all the possibilities of the macrocosm to become actualized. In the absence of these opposites, the positive and negative, the universe could not hold together and would cease to exist. To go beyond these polarities is to realize what I like to call Christ consciousness that help us to rise above the disconnected, the dissociated and become unified with the whole.

For example, sexual relations is uniting two individual consciousnesses into one giving us a taste of uniting our individual consciusness with the pure consciousness that Jung called the collective unconscious or I like to call God the Father.


http://thinkunity.com

Great thoughts!

I think you're exactly right that we see the infinite reflected "in" the finite. From the philosophical angle, it's important to remember that "infinite" is a negative concept, i.e. it doesn't mean huge beyond huge, or the largest and biggest imaginable, but rather without limits, without bounds. A limit or a bound is always a dividing line between something and something else, but in God there is no other, no else, no division. It's this transcendent oneness, this utter indivisibility that captures the meaning of "infinity," not the notion of hugeness beyond measure. Hugeness is a property of things, and God is No Thing.

Yes, I like that the infinite is unqualified consciousness and we are qualified consicousness. We have qualities while pure consciousness doesn't. I will have to remember that thanks.

The answer to this question has to do with male power and the ego. The Roman emperors had both big egos and almost unlimited power. You were required to worship them as gods. If you did not, or preached a doctrine that did not present them as gods, you were in danger of crucifixion, being fed to the lions or used as a toy in the amphitheatre to fight the lions as entertainment for the masses. When Christianity got in bed with Constantine, it changed. Gnostic views were suppressed because their ideas give power to the individual rather than to a leader. The early orthoxox Christian leaders were interested in power and control. This is the kind of attitude that satisfies the male ego and not the spirit. Once the Christians were granted power through Constantine they began to exercise their power by torturing and persecuting everyone who did not agree with their interpretation of what they thought the message of scripture is. First, Religion had to have a powerful god at the top of the hierarchy - something similar to the powerful Roman emperors. Gnosticism teaches something quite different. It teaches us that everyone should treat each other as kings and queens. This is dangerous thinking for the power mongers.

In order to retain their power, the orthodox church leadership needed to stamp out the teachings of Gnosticism. Witch hunting, intimidation, anathema, book burning, the burning of the libarary at Alexandria, torturing and executing pagan priests and other heretics became necessary for the church to retain its power.

Gnosticism was stamped out by force - not by intellectual process!

The meaning of their symbolism has almost been lost but I am slowly getting it put back together and it is beginning to look more like Gnosticism and Hinduism are far more similar that anyone previously thoought.

BobD

The concept of the demiurge as the flawed creator of the universe is a distortion of what the Gnostics originally meant by it. The demiurge is the creator of the law which is flawed. The universe is an illusion created by our own thought collectively.

…Do not establish laws, as the lawgiver did, so you will not be bound by them.

- The Gospel of Mary

The concept of the law which is proclaimed to have been introduced allegedly by god through Moses has been regarded as the basic tool with which to control our world societies – not the world society as a whole, but populations of individual countries, states and kingdoms. It is structured in such a way that if we follow laws created by our so called leaders or groups of leaders, we are considered “good” and if we don’t, we are considered “bad” and need to be “punished”. As such we have built around them a whole system of law and law enforcement designed to control the masses and keep them on the “good side” of god; or more importantly, on the “good side” of the leaders. But were the Ten Commandments originally intended to be regarded as laws? Does god really have a “good side”? Or have we merely pinned this image on “Him”?
The concept of creating laws contradicts the concept of free will. Why would god give us free will and then dictate laws for us to obey? If you are to obey laws created by others you become the puppet of these “others”. What is the point of having free will if you are nothing but a puppet? Laws actually stifle the concept of free will. Do we have a god that created us to control us? If that is the case then “he” would have been better off creating androids. They obey without question. It just does not make any sense to create human beings with free will for the purpose of making them obey a set of laws.
Perhaps the so-called laws that come to us through Moses are not laws at all – perhaps they are commitments or guidelines. I ask you. “If you were god, would you create people for the purpose of controlling them with laws, or would you create people and give them a set of guidelines to live by?” Quite frankly, I would prefer the latter. According to organized Jewish and Christian religion’s interpretation of the Pentateuch, Moses presented the laws in the second person. You shall do or not do this or that. When commitments are presented as commandments, it means “you” must follow them; it does not necessarily mean “me”. Many early Christians took this attitude when they practiced genocide, torture, shunning, anathema and other abominable practices because they thought they were on the righteous side of god as members of the recognized Christian Church. They could do no wrong as soldiers of god. In their mind, the commandments applied to “you”. “You” are to obey the commandments – not “me”. In order to be on the “righteous” side of god, “you” must follow god’s commandments (which are really “my” commands because “I” know god is invisible and mute and is not saying anything at the time that “I” interpret what god allegedly said and issue “my” commands) to rid the earth of the “unrighteous heretics” and “our enemies”. This is the kind of thinking that would cause any band of “unrighteous heretics” to organize against these “self proclaimed righteous bastards”. The language we use today is a little different. We have the “unrighteous evil Moslem terrorists” against the “self proclaimed righteous American and British Christian and Jewish infidels”. The attitude between fundamentalist religious organizations is the same today as it always was. The laws are for “you” not for “us” and “we” are the “good guys”, “you” are the “bad guys”. The way that Moses is portrayed as presenting the commandments, does not bring harmony; it brings power, control and confrontation. “You” obey; “I” give the orders because “I” am in control. Systems of governments around the world are based on this concept of power and control using the “commandments from god” interpreted in their own way as their basic premise for the control. These “commandments from god” cement their power base, especially that of the dictators and kings, giving them wealth and power and the right to use their citizens as pawns to protect them from dissenters and outside threats and to maintain their wealth and power. For dictators and kings, it works for life or deposition, and for elected politicians it works until the next election. They create and enforce the laws for everybody to obey. There are laws to create borders between municipalities, states, provinces and countries. There are laws forcing us to pay taxes. There are international, federal, provincial, state, and municipal laws controlling just about every aspect of our lives. In this world family of humans, the village heretic proposes that the system of making and obeying laws, although it brings some order, does not stem the growth of anger and rage and serves mainly those who have the greatest power and wealth. There is a better way.
We spend billions of dollars on legislation, building places of incarceration, building large police forces and armies and yet theft, murder and misleading others, wars and threats of wars continue day after day, month after month, year after year and century after century. It still has not eliminated the need for spending billions of dollars on security devices and locks. Even though we develop more sophisticated laws, locks and security devices, there are always some who murder, mislead, deceive, steal, commit adultery, dishonour parenthood, ingest dangerous drugs and worship idols. It appears that although making laws to prevent theft, murder, ingest dangerous drugs, and intent to injure and mislead has become a job creation program, for lawyers, judges, policemen, politicians and security specialists, it never seems to solve its intended objective of actually eliminating these activities or eliminating the paranoia and fear of being robbed, misled, injured or killed. We have a never-ending cycle of disobedience followed by punishment. Only a very small sector of the population commits offences against their fellow man, but that small sector of the population creates a very large amount of paranoia and fear among the general population. There is a better way.
There are also many, many examples where the law damages people’s lives and punishes them, even though they have committed no crime. I found in our local newspaper dated the 29th of May 2004 an article that appears to be a good example of one.
WINNIPEG (CP) – A single mother who took her car for a tune-up is without a vehicle after her mechanic was busted for driving without a licence.
The mechanic’s arrest triggered a mandatory section of Manitoba legislation that authorizes police to impound and eventually seize a vehicle – regardless of its owner – because it was the third offence within five years.
“This has turned my life upside down, and I’ve been innocent in this whole thing,” Brandy Simmons said.
The province agrees Simmons is the victim of a “highly unusual situation,” but has refused to reimburse her for the loss of her car.
The mechanic was pulled over by police last November while driving her car from a parking lot into the shop’s garage. Somehow, officers caught the man during the minute-long spin.
Simmons bailed her car out of the impound lot one week later, but had it seized for good in March after her mechanic pleaded guilty to a Highway Traffic Act offence.
The plea triggered a mandatory forfeiture of the vehicle in question.
Simmons was sent a forfeiture notice, which permitted her to appeal within a 30-day period, but she ignored it because she assumed her role in the case was over.
Lawyer Tom Percy said he doesn’t blame her for ignoring the notice.
“She had no clue what was happening here, and this notice was so vague,” he said. “We passed it around the office here and three or four lawyers couldn’t make heads or tails out of it.”
The matter only got worse for Simmons when the car was stolen. Police eventually found the smashed-up car and Manitoba Public Insurance deemed it a write-off.
The insurer was ready to pay Simmons $5,300 for her loss, but the province took the cash instead.
Don Lofendale, Crown counsel with the provincial civil legal services branch, said he sympathizes with Simmons, but his department has refused to return the cash from her wrecked car because she failed to respond to the forfeiture notice.
Lofendale said provincial legislation doesn’t allow for the review of such cases once forfeiture has occurred.
Simmons said the financial fallout has forced her to drop out of Red River College where she was in her final year of studying child and youth care.
“I’m really struggling and I’m wondering where the justice is here,” she said.

This is a case where a single mother was seriously inconvenienced and legally robbed by the Province because of the way the law is written. This is not an isolated case. We read about these kinds of incidents every day in our local newspapers. Parents are convicted of child pornography for taking bathtub photos of their toddlers; a man is convicted of cruelty to animals for fighting off a vicious dog with a cane; a quadriplegic is convicted of marijuana possession for smoking it to relieve post-surgery muscle spasms. In many places, a person can be jailed for growing hemp or fined for putting unopened liquor behind the front seat of his vehicle. According to BBC News March 15, 2002, Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress. Fifteen of the girls died in the fire because the mutaween police were enforcing Islamic law.
There is also the problem of people being wrongly convicted. The Death Penalty Information Centre announced on August 9, 2004 that Jefferson Parish prosecutors today dismissed all charges against former Louisiana death row inmate Ryan Matthews. He became the nation's 115th death row inmate to be freed according to the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). Matthews was sentenced to die in 1999 and spent nearly five years on death row before DNA evidence helped clear him of a murder that occurred just two weeks after his 17th birthday.
Can you imagine how much misery prosecutors, policemen and other members of the prosecutorial system have created for Matthews and his family and friends as well as the other 115 families and their friends while they receive generous salaries for executing their duties? If DNA is able to uncover 115 wrong convictions pertaining to the Death Penalty, how many hundreds or even thousands of wrong convictions exist in crimes not involving the Death Penalty? The question is a legitimate one. Another problem that produces wrongful convictions is sloppy forensic science or outright fraud in forensic testing. Sloppy forensic testing by people like Arnold Melnikoff, Joyce Gilcrest and Jacquiline Blake has resulted in dozens of overturned convictions in the United States. Guardian Newspapers on November 3rd 2003 reports that thousands of convictions based on DNA evidence have been called into question after inspections revealed that sloppy standards and contamination of evidence were rife at American police laboratories.
Wrongful convictions are really not the main issue regarding the inadequacies of using and applying the concept of the law to control unacceptable behaviour. The central issue of the concept of the legal system is that it represents the number of the beast of Revelation, 666. It is based on an adversarial system; the prosecutor against the defendant. It is the system of ha satan which is known as a symbol called the adversary. ha Satan is actually the transliterated Hebrew word phrase in the Jewish Tanakh meaning ‘the adversary’ or ‘the opponent’. The beast of Revelation has ten horns. According to Organized religion’s interpretation of the Old Testament and the Jewish Tanakh, god introduced the law with its ten intimidating horns called the Ten Commandments with the intention of controlling the behaviour of the ancient Israelite tribes. The horns of a moose, bull, deer or other horned animals are used to intimidate their opponents or perceived opponents. If that does not work, then they have the ability to gore and seriously injure or kill any animal or person that they perceive as a threat. Mankind has evolved enforcement and penal systems based on this beast called the law, that have the power to intimidate, confine, psychologically and physically injure or kill any person who does not obey the “Ten Commandments”. The idea of the law has been adopted with the intention of controlling our behaviour when we fail to respect the rights and needs of others. And to some degree, it works. Unfortunately, like so many other things in the world of ha satan, it has also turned out to be a tool for the powerful to keep themselves in power and to make themselves rich. As well, it has been ineffective in completely stopping crime, become a heavy financial burden for prosecuting and housing those convicted of a crime and has contributed to the spread of discontent.
Today we see groups of various kinds campaigning against unfair laws. Just to mention a few, we have the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life groups campaigning against unfair abortion laws from opposite sides. Those who feel that we should have the right to die with dignity, argue that we have unfair palliative care laws. We have petitioners campaigning against unfair incarceration laws in Florida. We have the Countryside Alliance campaigning against unfair laws in general. Iranian women campaign against unfair rape laws. The Centre for Trade Policy Studies in the U. S. discusses the unfairness of the anti-dumping laws. Dr. Kayoko Tsumori, a Policy Analyst at The Centre for Independent Studies in Australia writes a discussion paper on unfair dismissal laws in that country. In Wichita Kansas the Wichita Eagle, February 7, 2004, had an article about unfair sodomy laws. Our local newspaper, the Times and Transcript, reports on May 28, 2005 that a nationwide audit shows Access to Information laws fail in New Brunswick. It has become a burden for business people who have to retain legal representation with respect to every project they begin to make sure they are not breaking the law. The cost of personal liability insurance for professionals is going through the roof. All this makes one wonder why we are all so hell bent on using the law to solve our relationship problems. The Gnostic Christians call the maker of the law, who is the Old Testament god Yahveh (also called Yahweh or Jehovah), the creation of Ialdabaoth the deformed son of Sophia. Sophia is the Greek word for wisdom and the deformed son of Sophia is the symbol for distorted, twisted and warped wisdom. According to Gnostic Christians, using the laws of Yahveh to solve relationship problems is warped wisdom. It is warped to suit the desires of those who are in a position to legislate and enforce the law. It is also deformed and twisted in the sense that it creates as many or more problems than it solves. We are continually fixing it with new laws and yet it never seems to actually get fixed. An example of how bent our wisdom has become is illustrated by the laws making the parents responsible for the acts of their children. It’s a sure fire way to teach our youth how not to be responsible for themselves. I see the laughing Jesus cracking up over this one.
Another flaw in using law to control the masses is that it assumes that there are absolutes around which we can build our lives. Governments and kingdoms proclaim laws and expect them to be followed absolutely. This is impossible because Einstein’s theory of relativity proves that there are no absolutes in the universe. Everything in the universe is relative and always changing and many laws become obsolete before the ink dries on the decrees; or there is an unforeseen issue missed after the law is proclaimed. The end result is that we have truck loads upon truck loads of books of laws and amendments and still we perceive that new ones need to be proclaimed every day. The concept of the law is based on the assumption that we give authority to a few people or accept authority from a few people and the rest obey. The concept of authority and obedience and law and order falls short of its objective of bringing security and harmony because it includes foolishness with its wisdom, chaos with its discipline and often the horns of the law produce fear instead of love.
Harmful side affects of the law include underground markets that develop when you outlaw pornography, prostitution, abortion, drugs and alcohol or create price freezing. Procuring these services and products from an underground market produces a substantially increased risk to your health as those who market in this manner tend to be of the more ruthless kind. They simply don’t care about quality or cleanness or the danger that they present to the prospective buyer. There is a better way.
The law fails to give us complete security against officials of a sovereign nation who would cause our deaths, injure us or take our property. It fails to provide full security for us from stalkers, serial killers, rapists, abusers, thieves, drunk drivers and many other kinds of offenders no matter how strictly it is enforced. It fails to protect citizens in countries where political leaders hide behind an official secrets act to bully, murder and torture. How does the village heretic know this? The answer is simple. It is because these activities continue day after day, month after month, year after year and decade after decade no matter what laws we create to “protect” society. The law brings some security and harmony. However it also carries with it the mark of the beast Jehovah who gave us the law, by retaining the concept of ha satan the adversary in that it uses the antagonistic approach to control people. Those who do not obey the law are considered adversaries. As a result, anger and unrest continues to prevail. There is a better way to bring about harmony on earth. That way is to go back to where it all began and look upon the commandments as guidelines to commit to and to restructure them so that they contain only wisdom that produces love and self discipline and are emptied of foolishness that produces fear and chaos brought about by the power and control systems using the concept of law, authority and obedience. The law binds us and it will not provide harmony and security by itself.
According to Dr. Charles Scobie, retired professor of theology at Mount Allison University in Sackville, New Brunswick, ‘law’ is a poor translation of ‘torah’ which really means ‘teaching’ or ‘guidelines’. If we look at the Laws of Moses as guidelines, we are free to build a system with flexibility rather than fall in line with rote obedience. We will follow naturally when we understand the harmonizing value behind a commitment. We will not fall in line if we can see that a commitment produces ha satan immediately or at some point in the future.
I would like to present a word of caution as we take a look at the Ten Guidelines presented by Moses as they come to us through the Bible. The words issuing the Guidelines did not come directly from Yahveh. They came from the mouth of the only witness, Moses, who made the claim that they are the words of Yahveh. The words composing the “commandments” that you read in English, are only the opinion of a translator as to what Moses actually said. All translators of the “commandments” in the Pentateuch to date represent or are sponsored by Jewish and/or Christian religious organizations. No existing translation has ever been audited by any independent experts who are not either paid by or strongly dedicated to either of these religions. As a result the meaning that evolves from reading the “commandments” in English has a bias that favours the theory that they were delivered through Moses by an all powerful third party entity called god and that they are actually commandments. This may not be a completely accurate portrayal of how Moses received them or what was intended by them. I would strongly advise that anyone wanting to get a more accurate understanding of what is written in the Bible, to step out of the boat and into the stormy seas to get familiar with the source languages, Hebrew and Greek. These languages have become institutionalized by Jewish and Christian religious organizations. The meaning of their words has been established by long standing acceptance within these organizations. Such meanings may or may not accurately represent the intended meaning of the original authors. The only way to find out is to dig into it yourself. Tools are now available to permit you to do this.
One of the greatest tools ever invented for studying the Bible is the computer disk version of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. It uses something called Strong’s numbers and Strong’s concordance and a system known as G/K numbers produced by Goodrick and Kohlenberger, editors of the New International Version Exhaustive Concordance. Strong’s numbers are numbers given to words in the Bible by a seminary professor, Dr. James Strong for his Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible first published in 1890. With the recent development of personal compute