Facilitating dialogue to promote open and multi-faceted discussion and awareness

A bit of a disclaimer: I wrote this in my journal. This was only written so I would remember it. Nick read over it and felt it might be a good idea to post it, though I was a bit hesitant because I did not really plan on saying this to anyone in the format it is written. Like I said, It was really just written to myself to get the ideas out of my head. I guess I say all that to ask any reader to excuse any grammar, and syntax issues.  I am a notorious run-on sentence-o-neer, especially when I am feverishly trying to get an idea out. But, maybe some of you will find something of worth in these thoughts.

The more I study world religions, the more commonalities I find. An interesting trend I seem to notice is the dichotomy between two prevailing philosophies. On one side, there is an almost undeniable ubiquitous quality in every religion (for sake of this entry I’ll call this one “religion A”) being: There is one “All” or “cause” or “supreme being” that all creation (I use that term loosely in this philosophy, for a better term may be “bending” or “morphing”) emanates from. Hinduism’s “Brahman” Buddhism’s “Nirvana” (I mean that in its absolute end sense.) Various Egyptian cults, Thoth, to Hermetic circles (“the all”) (Hermes even being a transliteration/adoption of Thoth. The Greeks believed them to be one in the same.) To various Illuminated fraternities, (Theosophy’s research Madame Blavotsky” who interestingly enough learned most of her new age religion mixing from the “secret doctrines” from tibetan monks.) ushering humankind into its highest self and thus creating a paradoxical cycle of creation. Fully ascended man being the architect of his own creation. This, also a bit eery to me, sounds much like modern humanistic social gospel (I mean that in its purely humanistic sense, not the ushering in of the kingdom of God on Earth by Christ lived out in our lives version of the words “social gospel”, but the crafting of it by man alone: i.e. the crusades, the Spanish attempt at pillaging the new world to fund the infrastructure of a new world (King Ferdinand allegedly planned to hand the keys of Spain to Christ after “Christianizing the world.”)) even modern almost hedonistic philosophies via Aleister Crowley, or Anton LaVey. (“do as thou wilt”) The idea seems to be, we are expressions OF/and ARE the all-mighty and the ego is in some way a “false self.” (even within some circles of mystical Islam and esoterically “illuminated”  or “gnostic” Christianity you find belief that, God is the real “self” and that the Ego or Atma is an illusion. Though, the language changes to fit the various contexts.)

The over arching mythologies, cosmologies, and cosmogeneses seem roughly equivocal throughout both of these prevailing philosophies , i.e. Grand architect god creates hierarchy of spirit beings or splits into higher self expressions, then into lower physical expressions, etc. At least they are the same in the large picture .(Cause (God) forms other things.)
Religion B however, is unique in one large respect (this may make sense for my above exhaustive semantic specificity when distinguishing between the terms “form” or “create” and that of the terms “split” or “emanate.”)
While in Religion A we are, if you trace our lineage back far enough, in fact, God. We are Gods consciousness split into separate personalities. This is in every philosophy or understanding within the category I call “religion A” it is almost eerily similar throughout. The idea that we, at the core, are in fact God. This is where Religion B distinguishes itself. The largest most clear example in my opinion is that of the teachings of Christ. There is a specification on the love of the other, within Christ-centric teachings. “love your neighbor AS yourself.” is a huge distinction from “love yourself within your neighbor.”
In religion B we are not God. We are other, CREATED by God.

This idea in my opinion makes completion of the notion that God IS Love. If true Love is in fact “laying down one’s life” or “rejecting the self” this is only possible if the object receiving such gift is in fact NOT the self. If you are being selfless to you in another form, (say your reflection in a mirror or your own limbs.) you are not being selfless. If God split himself into several personalities, and then loved those separate personalities, he is the divine narcissist. He is SELF love. But, his Love could be made complete by the CREATION of the other. If he created separate wills from that of his own, and gave them the free operation of will to choose, then he finds an object of completing his love. Its not selfish in the sense that he needed to Love to achieve some goal. But if God IS Love and Love IS the preference of another over the self, then a necessary eventuality of God’s existence as Love is the creation of the recipient. This Idea, I have almost Exclusively found within the teachings of Christ  and the prophets of the old testament. (though the notion that God created differing wills then that of his own, that exist in distinction to his/hers exists within several circles of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.) In religion A, God, in my opinion, is self serving. He is basically holding a prism to his own light, splitting himself into parts, and then loving each of his own parts. It is self serving. But if God is Love, then the creation of the Other makes His Love perfect and complete. He gains nothing by loving his creation which is by nature less then the creator. So his Love is complete.
Religion group A: We are emanations of God. We ARE God split into separate personalities, but we are truly God. God loves us, but because we ARE God he/she really is in love with him/herself.

Religion group B: We are something distinct created by God. We are objects of affection. God loves something that is NOT him/herself.

It is a side note as well to me that the prevailing dichotomy within these philosophies seems to have its grounds in the biblical account of Adam and Eve. The serpent tells Them that “they will be as gods.” This idea seems to be the grand deception (if Christ is correct.) Religion A uses all of the same mechanical mythos and legend as religion B, but with one twist, if you follow it to its ends, we ARE God.

The Salvation that Christ offers has many layers that seem to hint at and validate the notion that man is not God.)
1st John 5:13 talks about believing in the name of the son of God. Further investigation into this yields several interesting results

“The name Yehoshua has the form of a compound of “Yeho-” and “shua”: Yeho- יְהוֹ is another form of יָהו Yahu, a theophoric element standing for the personal name of God YHWH, and שׁוּעַ shua‘ is a noun meaning “a cry for help”, “a saving cry” that is to say, a shout given when in need of rescue. Together, the name would then literally mean, “God is a saving-cry,” that is to say, shout to God when in need of help.”

The name of the son “Yeshua” being a “plea” to God seems to imply a distinction. The primary philosophy I keep seeing in Christ’s teachings is this notion of “taking up your cross” (the denial of self.) and following him. (implying a distinction between self and Christ.) He often critiques the thought of working to obtain righteousness (see the various interactions with pharisees “white washed tombs” etc.) and stresses the idea that salvation comes from God and is free to those who ask. I think one necessary understanding key to this shift he calls “repentance” is the idea: “on my own, I cannot achieve salvation. I need the help of God.” (the name being a plea to God seems to make much more sense with this understanding.) If we ARE God, on any level, the help we need comes from within (sound eerily similar to “new age” or “self help” philosophies permeating western thought. Which as a side note seems more and more to me to be hermetically founded verses the notion that it is Judeo-Christian in nature. The Rosicrucians and Free-Masons have heavy ties in Hermeticism.) But if we are distinct in nature, we would need help from God. This, in my opinion, is the primary philosophical/spiritual paradigm shift in the teachings of Christ. The denial of self via acceptance of the impossibility of crafting one’s own righteousness or perfection, and the willingness to be helped by God. This would make total sense of why God-incarnate found such favor in the poor and the weak. They are willing to ask for help. They know they are not enough on their own, they need aid. Also children in that context are dependent on their parents. They come FROM their parents, and are distinct in nature to their parents, thus, needing their parents to survive. If a Child was just an expression of the parent (which I believe they are, but I also believe they are distinct.) upon the child’s realization that he is in fact his own father, would cease to need the fathers aid. I think this is how Christ could BE God, but also distinct. Jesus would be the only emanation from God in this understanding. “The word of God.” Jesus says this as well “6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.”  the idea that man is an expression of his progenitors (our genes come from our parents.) and Christ is the expression of HIS progenitor; God. (Making sense of the son title.) He goes on to say that unless you are born of the spirit you cannot enter the kingdom of God. There is a beautiful dance going on here: Man is separate and distinct, It had to be so that he could be an object of Love, but God desires oneness with man, so He offers him adoption. If man is the expression of man, and Christ the expression of God, then why not have them marry and birth something new? The church! So you have oneness WITH distinction in this philosophy. The intermingling of two distinct gene pools. One side (man) gains the lineage of God, while God takes on the awfulness and sin of man. In any case, this all is only made possible by the created separation of man from God. Union can only exist between two or more distincts.