All A Part of God \ All Apart From God

Walsch likes one of my favorite authors, Karen Armstrong, in History of God where she describes the historical shifts of mankind from hunter/gatherer, to the city/state, to the industrial age of science and modernism.  These shifts affected thought worldwide (though not all at the same time). 

Is another shift in process now?  We had a very similar discussion a couple of years back while discussing the Emerging church where we talked about an almost universal spirit that begs for unity. Have we learned yet that a faithCommons can and does exist?  I definitely believe many have, but are the masses onboard yet?

In part, even the most traditional churches have had to change quickly as they see their numbers dwindling.  Some see this a owing to the same awareness that humanity is coming to -- that we are all one.  Here at fC we have discussed so many nuances of similarity in theme and message that it becomes obvious that there is a lot about God that is universal. 

One interesting point that Walsch makes is that he sees this shift as definitely coming -- only a matter of time and events until man realizes (hopefully not before too late) that we are destroying each other and our habitation with our continued conflict over who has God.  Walsch jumps the barriers in one leap by saying God is in all things living, even rocks, trees, birds, ...people.  The problem comes when we begin to describe God as a person because we proceed to make God in our own image, and define the boundaries. 

reido

The first point that Reido makes (paraphrasing from Neal Donald Walsch at the top of this thread), is that “religions have failed to bring unity and peace to humanity [and that] Exclusivity [is] the root of Separation.” This led me to reconsider the history of Christianity, as well as Reido's question of whether we are Preparing for a Major Shift.

I'm going to add a rather wordy addition. Are you surprised? :) But not because I think I'm the only person who knows about this history. Instead, I'm including it as fuel for additional discussion, or fodder for disagreement. We are indeed in a very special time in history, and this sort of discussion is the kind of discourse that went on in the coffee houses of the Enlightenment period, and—I believe—in similar places during what would lead to the Christian shift two-thousand years ago.

What I write here is heretical to the basic teachings of many religious institutions. They preach constancy, but nature refutes them. They preach return to a Golden Age, but Life evolves and emerges. Let history and nature be my judges.

Christianity has its roots in the great changes that were occurring in the Hellenistic Jewish communities of the Roman and Greek city states that peaked during the first centuries BCE and CE (from roughly 100BCE to 100 CE). This great blending of Greek, Persian/Babylonian, and Jewish (and perhaps a little Roman) philosophies and esoteric wisdom produced a significant longing for a New Dawn in human awareness. There is little doubt that influences from Asia and the Asian subcontinent of present day India weave into the great multicultural sea that was Mesopotamia, sitting as it did at the crossroads of most of the ancient world's trade winds. Mithraism, originating in Persia and Babylonia, was popular with Roman soldiers who then spread the secret mystery cult throughout much of the empire. And the great swell of economic activity and cultural exchange made possible by the Greek, and then Roman empires, which allowed the opening of the Silk Road(s) (or huge expansion of what had been closed for centuries by rampant pirating). Its effect was comparable to that of the Internet of today (and tomorrow).

While little is known of it, I believe that Mithraic worship is linked, to some extent, to the changing Platonic Months. Originally, Mithraism celebrated the shift from Taurus into Aries—as depicted in ancient friezes and medallions showing Mithras riding or subduing a bull, into which he is thrusting a sword. And I think the shift from Aries into Pisces is hinted at in Mathew 2 with the visit of the “wise men from the East” or magi who were awaiting the “star” that would herald the shift into Pisces (the Fish), and that the Mithraic cult would contribute to what would eventually become the theology of the Universal Church. Other gospels in the Christian scriptures mention people who knew there was a new age upon them. Therefore, our current assumption of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth is likely linked to someone's calculation of the beginning of the age of Pisces. This commencement was originally calculated in the eight century, I think, and would make its way into the Gregorian calendar in the twelfth—the first Western calender to count years from a common date. Which, interestingly, is just about one Platonic Month ago (2,160 years). So we are at the dawn of another new age—Aquarius.

But what does all of this have to do with Christianity? Is Christianity just a rehashed Mithraism, or a refitted pagan cult? Absolutely not! It is the culmination of several centuries of philosophical collaboration between East and West. But what of the Universal, or Catholic Church? And the Protestant Church that was cloned from it?

This is where we consider the question of Exclusivity verses Unity.

The Universal Church was originally a movement to make the young Christianity available to the masses. It was an attempt at Unity. And I believe that the great syncretism that occurred in its early centuries was powered somewhat by this quest to unify and enlighten an extremely hostile, selfish, and competitive multicultural world. But what went wrong?

Eventually, this universalizing movement—this great syncretism—would turn ugly and despotic. By the time of Constantine, the rivalry among the Christian and Jewish Heterodoxies, and of course the various temple systems of so-called Pagan Rome, was (in my perhaps unscholarly opinion) adding fuel to the political divisions and civil wars that would end (well, take pause) in Constantine's eventual victory over, and reuniting of the Roman empire. The religious and philosophical victors were those who had supported (or avoided hindering) Constantine's quest for victory over and re-consolidation of the split empire (after subduing his co-emperor and brother-in-law, Licinius in 324CE). Although the political and military fervor was settled, the religious and philosophical coals were about to blaze. For beginning in the fourth century, and climaxing in the fifth and sixth centuries, the eventual Universal Christian juggernaut would sort the goats from the sheep and solidify its power. For the West, the time of economic, philosophic and cultural intermingling was over. Exclusivity would reign supreme for five-hundred years, and lead to the Crusades against Islam and Eastern Orthodox Christianity in Byzantium. It would not subdue Islam, but it would end the Byzantine empire and what left of the empire started by Octavius Caesar (Augustus), just a few years before the traditional birth of Jesus the Christ. Funny how these things coincide.

We currently stand at the juncture of a new interconnectedness that will fuel a rebirth, or Renaissance. Like the imperialistic exploits of Greece (Phillip and Alexander) and Rome, and those of Islam and European Christianity a thousand years later, the upheaval of the past century or two has realigned, and reconnected, East with West, and with an additional hemisphere. We are at the cusp of a thousand-year shift, as well as a five-hundred-year and a two-hundred-fifty-year shift. This is a big one. In 1750, the Industrial Revolution and the politically shifting Age of Revolution were hatching. In 1500, the Renaissance was exploding with movable type. The Crusades, although a bloody mistake, reconnected Europe with the Eastern and Middle Eastern worlds, beginning about year 1000. I could go on, laying out the fall of Western Rome and the beginning of Feudal Europe in year 500, but the cycle should be obvious now. The cycles are obvious, but cloudy. We can never set a date for cycle inflections because they are are not really inflections, but conflations of smaller cycles of differing lengths, that don't line up perfectly. That is, these long cycles are more like maximum and minimum amplitudes that result from adding and subtracting many other cycles whose wavelengths don't line up exactly. So the wavelengths can vary from cycle to cycle, Furthermore, inflection points in waves that last one-thousand years, are themselves rather long. A point may be a century across.

My speculation about causes and the beginning and ending of historical cycles is just that—speculation. But it should be obvious, to any student of history, that human organizations eventually fail. Many of them end up doing the opposite of their original purpose. Religions often begin with an inclusive bent, but take on—eventually—a more exclusive one. But this is the way of all life.

Life is punctuated by birth and death. We should expect no more, nor less, from our institutions. But institutions are nothing if not self-preserving. Thomas Jefferson famously wrote:

“God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.”

Death is often abrupt and unexpected. But it is inevitable. Birth and Rebirth are dependent upon death. That is the way of nature, Life and God. From the most ancient of times, the most unmistakable attribute of God's creation is that Birth follows Death. Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3 that realizing the Kingdom of God requires Rebirth from above.

Most leaders and supporters of religious institutions will find my words here extremely heretical—so be it. If they cannot recognize the works of God so prevalent in nature, then they do not know God. If they would preserve their precious institution at all costs, then they are pushing against the goads, as it were, and denying God's nature. Change, Death, and Rebirth are obvious laws of God.

Bill

Awesome!  The cycles of the heavens go almost unobserved in our time as we count life sometimes in the hands of seconds while a heart is being hooked to a machine for restarting.  It demonstrates that the ancients were not as ignorant as might seem, and were really aware of the advancement of time.  The Aztec calendar comes to mind as a near relative of star timekeeping.

Without denial the heavens change and are just one part of the whole (although the part they play in the consciousness of Life may be greater than we know).  One has only to study a little of the Old Testament to see the significance of the Bull in symbology, and before our own eyes we still see the sign of the Fish on a daily basis. 

Also, I strongly agree with your observation that Change marks the amplitude of cycles on Earth.  Karen Armstrong's History of God demonstrates how God has changed through the Aeons.  Some would say God never changes...and yet the very Bible that has become the basis of their stand demonstrates that God has had many faces.  The point that is often missed is that there are many yet to come.  Walsch accurately states that God is in Process, which means God is changing.  Change happens when a conscious mind experiences something different -- if we were to consider experiencing the same things day after day, there would be little to learn and little change. 

The challenge of our day is that change and different experiences can now come very rapidly, speeding up the wave cycle.  Walsch brilliantly suggests a time in the near future when voting can take place by personal computer.  It is really no longer necessary to wait years to 'see' a concensus develop.  Right now it seems that our electoral candidates are way behind the wave of public awareness.  Do they really need to wait until bankruptcies, foreclosures, and failed businesses signal that something needs to be done in a major way about swiftly rising prices on everything that gasoline moves from groceries to commuting? 

Lastly, do Gods die?  If we mean the God that slew the Amalekites, women and children...yes, that God no longer lives.  If we mean the God that separated Israel from all the other peoples on the Earth, yes...  If we mean the God that led the Crusades...Or the God that tortured the Heretics...Or the God that utilizes Terror...then, yes, these Gods are dead.  They are yesterday's God, not tomorrow's.  But with that death always comes birth -- new life out of the old. 

reido 

Reido wrote: Also, I strongly agree with your observation that Change marks the amplitude of cycles on Earth. Karen Armstrong's History of God demonstrates how God has changed through the Aeons. Some would say God never changes...and yet the very Bible that has become the basis of their stand demonstrates that God has had many faces. The point that is often missed is that there are many yet to come. Walsch accurately states that God is in Process, which means God is changing. Change happens when a conscious mind experiences something different -- if we were to consider experiencing the same things day after day, there would be little to learn and little change.

Reido,

The Changing God perspective is difficult to fathom. Although I've read this from, Armstrong as you mentioned, as well as Beck, Miles, and others who were not really referring to God, but were anyway. God as a moving standard is rather postmodern—or is it? You statement that “Some would say God never changes…and yet the very Bible that has become the basis of their stand demonstrates that God has had many faces”, is ostensible. A changing God is probably the only reasonable way to finding middle ground between Literalists and Evolutionists. But of course, Literalism doesn't want middle ground. Neither do some Evolutionists. In fact, the standoff between the hardcore proponents of each side is indicative of radical dualism. Dualism requires an unchanging God—or at least an unchanging rift between Us and Them. But a Merciful, Just, and dynamic God obsoletes the belligerent temple systems.

I'd love to explore this deeper.

bill

Bill

I was caught up in realization when Walsch discussed the act and our understanding of Creation.  What really is it, but something new and different?  When the conscious mind is confronted with something different, it reasons about it and acts accordingly.  Of course, it has not yet learned by experience so it risks making a mistake, then when experienced, the mind can make comparisons and contrasts with what it has already experienced.  He uses the word Evolution interchangeably with Creation, as that is how he sees the Process working. 

What is baffling here is that he considers humanity to be an active participant with God (all things) because man has the ability to be aware and affect the outcome.  He used the definition of Quantum Physics that I really don't fully comprehend, but it goes like this...

"Nothing that is observed is unaffected by the observer."

Also, he sees life as an integration of matter and energy, even reintegration like a synthesis.  Even rocks possess what he calls "vibration", so it is not man alone that is involved -- it is the entirety of all things seen and unseen that makes up the whole. 

An interesting aspect of this integration theory is that he describes God as flowing, quite naturally.  When beings act in accord with Life, the result is continuation of the natural flow.  But when beings act (especially humans with their mental capabilities) on the Self, apart from the flow, Chaos results.  Basically, he sees God as eventually correcting all things but not according to a need to take care of any particular species.  That is, if humanity interrupts the natural flow, it will bring change -- not necessarily change that will ultimately benefit mankind.  Here he objects to biblical views that proclaim man as having Dominion over the Earth since the view has historically allowed many to believe that the Earth is to be subdued and harvested to its maximum extent.

Interesting points of view...

 reido

PS

I think this be classed as Naturalism, with probably one of the better treatments of the interrelationships of the conscious mind, energy, and matter.  You are correct that his theory would be acceptable to some atheists.