just for the craic

[mac]

You guys have set me off when earlier I had planned to stay away from ALF! lol Just to keep the ball rolling here is my take on God. It's only in my mind's eye and just a prop to help me but influenced by what I found in 'Soul Trek', a book compiled by Julie Gale and channeled/communicated through/to her. The book complements and adds to the very simple teachings of the religion and philosophy that underpin my approach. The way mac sees it then.....

God isn't the creative energy from which everything came about; that's down to 'source', the word I use. God is an entity which has undertaken the task of first creating and then overseeing everything in the universe where we live. (perhaps more) They are distinctly different from one another yet inextricably linked. I 'see' God as one spiritual step from source. Identical to in every way but operating separately from it - yet with all its attributes! I see one as an entity, the other a system.

In 'Soul Trek' readers are invited to consider source as a huge, brilliantly intense fire from out of which sparks fly and drift away into the distance while at the same time others are returning and being assimilated back into the fire. Sparks of life leaving source, other sparks returning to it. We're invited to think of the sparks as tiny-but-identical fractions of the whole fire, minuscule particles heading out to experience existences away from source.

Long story short, those particles experience existences in which they become ever more material, an 'outward' journey terminating in the physical world where we are living. In this dimension each spark experiences life incarnate and when that stage is completed the return journey commences. I visualise a U shaped journey, one leg the outward run from the open end of the symbol, the other leg the return with the curve between the legs the period spent in human form. The sparks of life animate life-forms, ourselves the last ones, the most complex ones. We live, we die, we return in different human forms - rinse and repeat until those lives are all over, experiences complete and we begin our long journeys home - all highly simplified and symbolic.

We are of source, from source, identical to source. Source is dispassionate about us humans. It neither cares-for nor does it not-care-about any individual. It's aware of everything (energy matrix) but cares about nothing. It doesn't care because it's not an entity, it's a creative energy system.

BUT God cares and can help provided it wouldn't compromise the natural law of the system it created and oversees. God is an entity hence it can feel. But to me God is not source and source is not God. I feel nothing for or against source but I have a relationship with head honcho God and it may influence events in my life.

Confused? I can understand if you are but it all works for me. Right about things or wrong I'm carried through by that unseen relationship and my limited understanding.

 

[bluebird]

Intriguing way of looking at it -- thank you for sharing that. I'm glad we "set you off", lol! I think I understand more now about how you view god and source, I suppose I just don't quite view it in the same way that you do.

To your way of thinking, did source always exist? Is source the origin of all existence? How did source originate? Did source create god -- and, if so, why? If not, how did god come about? Can god influence source, or is source completely non-sentient and without feeling? Do you view god as a compassionate / benevolent being? To me, your conception of source and god seems quite similar to the Christian view of god-the-father and Jesus.

Insofar as I ever think a god or the like even might exist, I view it as one being which is sort of combination of your ideas of "source" and "god".

 

[mac]

Oh I've enjoyed being set off on this topic. I can do it here safe in the knowledge few will see it anyway so there's not a snowball-in-hell's risk of offending anyone and I won't get moderated! LOL I do write cautiously about similar elsewhere but there are fanatical God freaks who will complain to moderators should one even appear to be disrespecting their barmy beliefs. It's like walking on egg-shells! lol

Down to business - quoted sections below with responses.

Intriguing way of looking at it -- thank you for sharing that. I'm glad we "set you off", lol! I think I understand more now about how you view god and source, I suppose I just don't quite view it in the same way that you do.

I knew we'd differ.

To your way of thinking, did source always exist?

yes - Whatever that means.

Is source the origin of all existence?

yes

How did source originate?

I don't have a clue but then I don't have a clue about even simple stuff! lol

Did source create god

no

-- and, if so, why? If not, how did god come about?

The entity we call God chose to undertake its special creator/overseer role in this universe.

Can god influence source,

I'd put it that it contributes to the purpose of source.

or is source completely non-sentient and without feeling?

yes - kinda

Do you view god as a compassionate / benevolent being?

yes

To me, your conception of source and god seems quite similar to the Christian view of god-the-father and Jesus.

oh dear

Insofar as I ever think a god or the like even might exist, I view it as one being which is sort of combination of your ideas of "source" and "god".

It's right to think of these things in whatever way works best for either of us as individuals. 'My' God represents (in my mind) the highest level of individuated source, a singular entity possessing all the creative energy of source, identical to it in all but that one way of manifesting as an entity.

 

[bluebird]

I'm finding this quite an interesting topic -- and you know I am open to hearing all kinds of views on all kinds of subjects, including the possibility of god, so no worries about offending me!

You said that in your view source did not create god, but that "The entity we call God chose to undertake its special creator/overseer role in this universe". If the god-entity was not created by source, then does that mean that god always existed, that it is a kind of contemporary of source? You said you believe that source is the origin of all existence -- how then is it not the creator of god? (Please understand, as I'm sure you do, that I'm not being snarky here -- I'm genuinely asking for your views). Also -- in your opinion, why did god choose to undertake the role of creator/overseer? And do you mean that source created the universe, but god created our particular planet earth? More directly -- what did source create, and what did god create, in your opinion?

To my question "Can god influence source?", you responded that "I'd put it that it contributes to the purpose of source". So god is source's force in the world, a kind of cosmic VP?

I didn't mean anything bad by saying that your conception of source and god seems to me similar to the Christian god-the-father and Jesus. In the biblical old testament, god-the-father is often a right bastard, or at least unfeeling -- smiting left and right, delivering plagues and floods and the like upon the world. Then along comes Jesus, who is loving and compassionate (though not without a righteous temper, as evidenced by his flipping of the merchants' tables in the temple, his chastising of the Pharisees about their adherance to the letter of biblical law rather than its spirit, his admonition "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", etc.), and sort of ameliorates the relationship between god-the-father and humanity, serving as a kind of loving emissary. Doesn't that sound to you much like your view of source and god? Plus, you also said in your response to me that to you, god represents "...the highest level of individuated source, a singular entity possessing all the creative energy of source, identical to it in all but that one way of manifesting as an entity." To me, that sounds very similar to Jesus.

Maybe there are two versions of a/the creator, and your view and Christianity's view have some similarities. All religions have some similarities, I suppose, and share at least some of the same basic mythology.

 

[mac]

I'm finding this quite an interesting topic -- and you know I am open to hearing all kinds of views on all kinds of subjects, including the possibility of god, so no worries about offending me!

The last point goes for me too, bb. We know one another well enough to also know we can each question what the other says without concern.

You said that in your view source did not create god, but that "The entity we call God chose to undertake its special creator/overseer role in this universe". If the god-entity was not created by source, then does that mean that god always existed, that it is a kind of contemporary of source?

I did think I might not have expressed myself well on that point so let me try again. If, as I claim, every 'particle' is - like entity God - of source, from source and identically similar to source then all likely emerge from source in a similar way but each with its own reason for leaving source. The most fundamental reason appears to be that source is enriched by what every returning 'particle' brings home. For most particles, then, that is their raison d'etre. Source doesn't so much create them as enable their individual existence. Same went for the particle that eventually assumed the role of God. Not created by source but enabled by it but having its own unique, special purpose. Not confident that's any better.....

You said you believe that source is the origin of all existence -- how then is it not the creator of god? (Please understand, as I'm sure you do, that I'm not being snarky here -- I'm genuinely asking for your views).

I would never think you're being snarky, bb. Questions are fine and I enjoy their challenge. I think I might have covered this point in the response above - not created but enabled.

Also -- in your opinion, why did god choose to undertake the role of creator/overseer?

Because source had need of an individuated particle of itself to fulfill a special purpose. The fundamental reason was that experiences away from source somehow enrich it or 'provide the fuel' as I believe 'Soul Trek' explains it. Creating a universe of opportunity was (again as I understand the text) the raison d'etre for God.

And do you mean that source created the universe, but god created our particular planet earth? More directly -- what did source create, and what did god create, in your opinion?

The way it's explained (as best I recall - the book's out of ready reach in my loft!) is that one of these so-called particles did not follow the path most others follow, a path which results in them associating with others in journeying groups. (a so-called soul cell/group.) The word used to describe this singular particle is 'logos' and the logos (in our own case) had one specific purpose. That of setting up the particular universe in which we live and then overseeing its operation until the whole thing eventually blinks out.

To my question "Can god influence source?", you responded that "I'd put it that it contributes to the purpose of source". So god is source's force in the world, a kind of cosmic VP?

That's certainly a fair way of expressing it.

I didn't mean anything bad by saying that your conception of source and god seems to me similar to the Christian god-the-father and Jesus.

And I did not see it in that way, bb. When I wrote "oh dear" it was solely my regret I hadn't done a good-enough job of expressing myself. I need to do better.

In the biblical old testament, god-the-father is often a right bastard, or at least unfeeling -- smiting left and right, delivering plagues and floods and the like upon the world. Then along comes Jesus, who is loving and compassionate (though not without a righteous temper, as evidenced by his flipping of the merchants' tables in the temple, his chastising of the Pharisees about their adherence to the letter of biblical law rather than its spirit, his admonition "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", etc.), and sort of ameliorates the relationship between god-the-father and humanity, serving as a kind of loving emissary. Doesn't that sound to you much like your view of source and god?

Re your final question, well, no..... I can't relate to what's written about god-the-father delivering all the bad stuff and his lad being the good guy as counterpoise. The role and behavior of Jesus is outside of my simple piece and to discuss either in a Biblical context needs detailed knowledge of texts, something I don't have or indeed want.

Plus, you also said in your response to me that to you, god represents "...the highest level of individuated source, a singular entity possessing all the creative energy of source, identical to it in all but that one way of manifesting as an entity." To me, that sounds very similar to Jesus.

That's another "oh dear" from me, bb. My take on Jesus sees him as an incarnate, spiritually-advanced teacher/guide who came for a particular purpose. (I don't know if it was achieved) He was plainly a physical and mental medium and an accomplished healer - period. Your mileage may vary! lol

Maybe there are two versions of a/the creator, and your view and Christianity's view have some similarities. All religions have some similarities, I suppose, and share at least some of the same basic mythology.

I don't know if I've made a better fist this time of explaining the way I understand things. The Devil is in the detail but the detail is what none of know, religions especially I suggest. Religions might well have been founded on simple facts but they were lost along the way. Kinda similar to the way details get lost in 'Chinese Whispers'.

 

[bluebird]

You actually did make your view a bit clearer to me in your reply, so thank you. In some ways I kind of agree with your "particle" idea, in that I have often viewed each human soul as a spark of divinity let loose in the universe. And I'm fine with that being the case, if each of us does have free will, including the freedom not to rejoin with that source/divinity/god/whatever. I do have something of a problem with source forcing each particle/spark/soul out into the universe solely in order to gather experiences to then share with it, however -- if souls want to volunteer, that's one thing, but if they have no choice then that's just slavery, and source/whatever can go gather its own info and experiences fully on its own, as far as I'm concerned. And if we are nothing more than particles of god, without our own soul, free will, and agency, then we are even worse than slaves, we are merely props. I don't personally think that is the case, but am offering my views on each possibility.

Your explanation as to why god chose to undertake the role of creator/overseer fits into the above, as well. You said that it did so "Because source had need of an individuated particle of itself to fulfill a special purpose" and that "...experiences away from source somehow enrich it or 'provide the fuel'...". Sorry, but I object to being a bit player or, as I said before, a mere prop, in source's cosmic play. Wherever/however we originate, I am my own being, my own soul, my own creation. As it sounds as if the being you view as "god" was, since from what you've described it followed its own free will (unless it was source that forced it to follow the purpose of setting up our universe?)

I do agree with your assessment of Jesus as "an incarnate, spiritually-advanced teacher/guide who came for a particular purpose"; I just don't see that as at odds with also viewing him as "...the highest level of individuated source, a singular entity possessing all the creative energy of source, identical to it in all but that one way of manifesting as an entity."

To me your conception of source and god still resembles god-the-father and Jesus, so I suppose we'll just continue to view that differently. But I'm not out to prove the correlation, and I do realize that my having been brought up with the Christian mythology may also be coloring my perspective on your views.

 

[mac]

I guess what you rail against is a position I consider as MY default, the one I find totally understandable, totally acceptable and totally desirable. A default that we are naturally drawn back to source and want to be drawn back because it's where we belong. But in our incarnate forms that may be anathema to many the way it is for you and for Bruce.

I don't share your extreme antipathy but I do accept it's how you feel. You might also be the exception to the general rule and choose forever to 'keep your distance' in whatever way you can. The way I understand things there's NEVER any compulsion to do anything so theoretically at least you could choose not to merge forever. Exactly what state you would exist in I really don't know.

I do find it slightly odd that my view on things appears to you to mimic the traditional religious approach. I see it being almost diametrically opposite, just the God/Jesus situation superficially appearing similar. It has to be my failure to adequately convey the way I see things and I admit I do find it hard.

I agree your view of my approach might indeed be colored by the Christian conditioning you've been exposed to. I'm thankful my Brit. notional Church of England religious education in school left me largely unscathed and totally uninfluenced. It seemed a nonsense and it's appeared even more so since my 'awakening' nearly forty years ago.

It's been good to kick this subject about.

 

[bluebird]

I don't object to anyone rejoining with source if s/he chooses to do so -- I only object if we don't have the free will to not rejoin. As for my own ultimate decision, I really don't know what I will decide -- I think it will depend in large part upon whether I would lose myself if I were to rejoin source, and the degree to which such rejoining would go. I have no problem with the idea of sharing some of my lifetime of accumulated knowledge and experience with others -- although not everything, as the personal stuff is mine alone (well, and my husband's, my family's, whomever I shared some of those experiences with). It would also depend, for me, on whether source/god/whatever is able to defend its inaction in allowing my husband to die when he did, or prove to me that there was nothing it could have done to help, or prove to me that it was for some reason necessary (I very much doubt it could do that last one, but I cannot discount the possibility 100%).

If rejoining with source would mean losing myself entirely, not being able to be myself (albeit perhaps a more spiritually advanced version of myself) and not being able to be with my husband and family as themselves, then I would much rather just be with my husband and family for eternity in some sort of peaceful existence in an afterlife (in houses we build, or in a forest, or on the beach, or whatever) than just melding back with source.

So if there really is an afterlife, if there really is a source/god/whatever, and if we do really have free will, then I suppose I will have to sort it all out for myself and make my decision once I've died and seen what's what.

I really do think that your view on source and god is similar to the god-the-father and Jesus paradigm of Christianity, though in a much less rigid way. Perhaps the trouble lies in your explanation, perhaps it lies in my comprehension, perhaps both. While I was raised Catholic as a child, we attended a very liberal church, and my dad wasn't Christian, he leaned more toward Buddhism -- so I really wasn't indoctrinated in the way so many Christians are. Which is not to say it had no effect on me, just that I was not brought up in a fear-based faith, nor in one that held too strictly to dogma -- it was more about a loving god, helping one's neighbor, etc.

Ah well, I agree that "It's been good to kick this subject about" -- I really do appreciate your views and insights, as well as our ability to discuss such topics rationally and openly, without either of us feeling offended or attacked. It's discussions such as this that keep me coming back to ALF.

 

[mac]

 

[bluebird]