Paper Bags & Babies' Bellies

While attempting to practice mindfulness - especially within meditation - the idea that we are striving for is best seen in the analogy of stirred up, muddy water (our minds). If we could calm the mind, it will settle and - as with the muddy water - the mud and sediment and random thoughts will eventually settle, leaving clear water (mind).

This is much easier said than done. Most often you'll discover, the mind has a mind of its own. You  are not generating these random thoughts, something else is. It is a good habit when you become aware of your mental drifting to have some sort of centering practice to 'bring your wandering mind back'.

I have had a great amount of success with what I call my Paper Bag Technique.

~

Do you remember your elementary school days when your mother would pack your lunch every day in a brown paper bag? It is these bags that I am referring to; especially the way the square bottom would be folded up to flatten the bag.

I imagine the paper bag slowly being opened and expanded with air. This folded bottom expands and opens first and only then can the upper and rest of the bag open up. It is important that you visualize the bag's bottom downwards (as in the picture).

~

Have you even watched a sleeping baby breathe?
We tend not to breathe like babies breathe. Babies breathe with their bellies. We, as adults, tend to breathe with our chests.

I think it is because we have been taught and conditioned to do so. A big belly, for a man or woman, is generally frowned upon.

We usually try to keep our bellies tight and drawn in.



For men a muscular chest is seen as both masculine and a sign of strength.






For women a large chest is seen as being big breasted, curvy, sexy, feminine and fertile.




Whether we have large muscular chests or big breasts or not isn't really important. We can always puff out our chests when we breathe to either fake it or augment it. Expanded chests, tight bellies; that's why we breathe like this.

When meditating we need to breathe like babies; with our bellies.
Breathe in and expand your belly first and then slowly fill your chest. Exhale. Repeat. Simple.
In my mind's eye, I visualize the paper bag with my every breath.

I have found that when attempting to meditate, and when my mind wanders, this practice works well. This is simply a good breathing exercise. We tend to never breath fully or deeply enough.

Seiza Bench

One piece of 10' x 1" x 6" pine board can yield approximately 3 seiza benches.

A single seiza bench begins with a 34" board.
The cuts are as follows:

One piece of 10' x 1" x 6" pine board. $ 10.00 (yields 3 seiza benches = c. $ 3.33 a piece)
Half meter of material. $6.50 in the sample of paisley pattern I chose.
Quarter meter of 1" thick foam. $ 6.00

Total cost: $ 15.83 + screws/hardware.
Under $ 20.00

This is a picture of the seiza bench I made and use.

In the example above, I used the extra foam and material to sew a thin pillow for my knees.

The nice thing about the seiza bench is that the angle (c. 17 degrees) puts your hips - and thus your spine - at a near perfect angle and allows you to breathe properly.

The sitting position is basically as you would sit on your calves. Your feet and calves are beneath the bench, while your bottom sits on the bench proper.

It is actually a very comfortable position.

Alcohol Substitute

Many people make a vow to abstain from alcohol, often citing religious reasons. (Often religious people might use alcohol as an issue of judgment. I know there is a tension between the Evangelical and Catholics on this issue - among others - and Muslims also come to mind.)

There was an Evangelical wedding my wife and I were invited to several years ago that was quite the experience; one we'll never forget.

No alcohol.
None.
No cash bar. No open bar. No wine on the tables, but grape juice for the toasts. Don't get me wrong. It isn't that I need alcohol to have fun. It's not that I need alcohol to celebrate. It's that there wasn't really any celebrating. Strictly controlled speeches. No music. No dancing.

It was like fun was replaced with fear.
That is the point that haunts me to this day, and has heavily affected a decision I made last summer on holiday (August 2012). I promised myself to give up drink. No, there was no event or embarrassment that initiated it. Just a point I came to in my personal journey towards solace and compassion.

However, I have zero tolerance for using this promise for any degree of attention. We all know these people. At some celebration or social event they decide to make it about their abstinence or their belief, at the passive judgement and potential guilt of others. No, that was never the purpose for me. I would have no difficulty with a glass of wine at a toast or social engagement should it merit it. (And incidentally this made me appreciate and savor the tastes more than before).

I know what you're thinking because I thought it myself. “That's not making a vow to abstain from alcohol”.

~

Maybe we should explore some traditional understandings or assumptions about 'vows'. Many of our “Western Traditions” or beliefs or religions – like the Evangelical, Catholic, or Muslim mentioned earlier – are ethical systems governed by rules. They are based on obedience to regulations and consequences. Failure or disobedience comes with moral guilt and fear of punishment. Ultimately, whether intentionally or not, it is a system of fear - and in turn - punishment. Taking a vow of alcohol abstinence in this tradition can only end in a fear of failure. There are no degrees or gradations allowed, for its purpose is not focused on personal growth or improvement, because improvement is an ongoing process, and process involves growth, and growth involves failure.

I don't believe this is spiritually healthy.

In the Mindfulness tradition the practices governing ethical behaviour are primarily concerned with shaping personal character. If one falls short of the promise, they simply take note of the shortcoming and vow to do better on the next occasion, without the feeling of incompetence or moral guilt.

This particular way of approaching ethical conduct invites the individual to act morally – not to avoid punishment (I don't run a red traffic light because I'm afraid of getting a ticket, but because I understand the danger I put myself and others in), but for the more positive and constructive purpose of refining one's character and promoting the well-being of the world (solace and compassion). This Mindfulness tradition uses neither the stick nor the carrot. (I am not given a reward for my good behaviour).

Making a vow in these two traditions involve drastically different functionalities.

~

I suppose my 'vow of alcohol abstinence' was more one of moderation and refraining from abuse. But the more I thought about it, the more I came to realize it was closer to Buddhism's 5^th precept:

“I shall endeavor not to consume toxins.”

Alcohol is not necessarily a poison, but it can be. However, there are a great many mind-inflicting toxins out there.

Historically, the precept to refrain from consuming toxins referred specifically to the use of alcohol, but the intent of this principle was simply to diminish the destructive effects of drunkenness. The use of alcohol can obviously affect the ability to think clearly, but alcohol isn't the only substance that can affect our ability to think clearly. Adhering to the spirit of this precept would necessarily mean becoming aware of any substance that could impair our mental and bodily functions, such as tobacco and mind-altering drugs.

Promising to observe this precept means nothing less than monitoring the things we allow into our bodies and into our minds.

Guarding our minds from intoxication and toxicity would necessarily include being aware of the kinds of information we take in. Gossip, slander, toxic people, poisonous attitudes, and some media. (Is watching Simon Cowell degrade and humiliate hopeful young artists and singers really entertainment? What does it say about you if you enjoy this?)

Religion can be a dangerous addiction.

Religiosity is a consumable toxin. And for those who would make this vow of alcohol/toxin abstinence – especially for religious reasons – I would advise them to search deeply and tread carefully.

Do not replace one with another more difficult to abstain from and near impossible to identify or be aware of. In fact, one could argue that Religiosity has a built-in system to keep its addicts blind to their affliction – fear of punishment and moral guilt. Perpetually conditioned to believe themselves undeserving and inadequate.

For me, these past six months have been yet another exercise in approaching the Mu Portal; freeing myself from the fetters that shackle and bind me.

I don't think is it overly important whether we take this 'vow' to not consume toxins, but I think it is extremely important  that we take an inventory of toxins within our daily lives. Alcohol would seem to be the lest of our worries.



(...continued on The Cleansing...)

"Evolution's Purpose" by Steve McIntosh; Commentary and Review

(By Guest Writer - Michel Weatherall)

I think a point that is made in this book should be pronounced early on; That a certain 'branch' of science - mechanistic materialism - be identified as a 'belief' is important.

"In a world that was once dominated by traditional consciousness and state-sponsored religious political authority, mechanistic materialism served as the protective shell out of which the "chick" of science could be born. But now the chick is hatched and science has become the new politically empowered authority on the truth. And this has resulted in the accompanying metaphysics of scientism becoming a new kind of state-sponsored belief system, used by materialists as a quasi-religious power base in academia and the mainstream media.   

"Robert Wesson observes: "Darwinism became the banner for those who would overthrow what they saw as an irrational, superstitious view of human origins... The theory of evolution became the focus of the confrontation of science and religion" 

"However, as a result of their ongoing battle with Christian fundamentalists, ironically, many scholars of evolution have themselves become "Darwinian fundamentalists." pgs 36-37

A point successfully made was the analogy of humanity's search for truth being like a 3-legged stool. Its legs being Science, Philosophy, and Spirituality (Religion). The simple fact that there are 'areas' where science cannot (and should not) function, is important.

"...this is especially important within the subject of evolution, where science and philosophy are often intertwined. While the empirical facts of evolutionary science cannot stand alone without some kind of philosophical frame, we do not have to accept materialism as the only philosophy compatible with these facts." pg. 144

An equally important point is that Science's materialism (neo-Darwinism) is based upon some sort of metaphysics - Belief.

"The faith that all things can be attributed to analyzable material causation is, in the end, only a faith like more candid faiths. The contention that reality consists of only material particles and their modes of interaction is not even a clear-cut theory... But are the laws of nature not real? Are mathematical theorems real? Are patterns real? Are thought and consciousness? It is paradoxical to deny their essentially  for science could not exist without them." pgs. 36-37

To return to the analogy of the three-legged stool, a methodology of a mechanistic materialism science only is a defective system with great shortcomings.

What is this stool's third leg, Spirituality?

"What is "spirit"? Well, to define something is to objectify it, and whatever spirit is, it is certainly not an object. But even though it cannot be adequately defined, this does not mean that spirit is obscure, indefinite, or wholly subjective." pg. 215

~

In the first half of this book Steve McIntosh tends to seemingly ramble on numerous tangents to prove some sort of point he feels necessary. Making an ambiguous statement peppered with large words; not so much to communicate simply his abstract ideas better, but seemingly to appear more academic. These statements are near without fail followed by another sentence beginning with "In others words..." only to make another ambiguous statement, again peppered with more unhelpful large words.

This author's writing style  made this entire book a brutally difficult read. What this book needs is a healthy dose of plain - simple - language.

It is possible that this book's target audience is a highly educated and academic group of professors and doctorates. Maybe the book is simply over my head. I'm not sure who exactly this book's target audience is meant to be.

What I do like about the premise of "Evolution's Purpose" is that not only does he identify the various forms of Evolution (it's not all Darwinism), more importantly, he believes they are all one in the same process.
Big Bang - Cosmological Evolution - Chemical Evolution - Biological Evolution - Pychosocial Evolution (Cultural Evolution).

He introduces Emergence Theory to (briefly) explain certain leaps and bounds in the Evolutionary process. (ie like how a primordial chemical soup could produce life. Like when hydrogen and oxygen are correctly combined [water] a gestalt-like feature emerges: surface tension) as opposed to Intelligent Design's Irreducible Complexity. However, like so many interesting ideas and topics presented in this book, I felt Emergence Theory wasn't expanded upon enough.

He seems to become distracted and fragmented however as he progresses into Pychosocial Evolution.
He speaks of Evolution from the Physiosphere to a Biosphere, to eventually a Noosphere. I can only assume by the Noosphere he means the evolution of culture.

Within this cultural evolution he repeatedly refers to stages or worldviews within.
Pre-traditional, Traditional, Modern, Postmodern, and what he predicts will be the new Evolutionary Worldview, seeing these as a Hagel-like progression of Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis.

In some sort of confused way he seems to link psychosocial evolution, this Noosphere, numerous syntheses, and cultural worldviews by the values of Truth and Beauty, and ultimately, Goodness. Although I believe he is right, with all of his pages of word weaving and mental  meanderings, I don't believe he successfully makes his point. I don't think the reader should be forced to decipher the author's ideas, where it is the author's job to successfully and clearly communicate his own concepts and ideas. He seems to rely on complicated repetition.

~

It isn't until the second half of the book do we begin to see where he is going with his ideas.

An interesting and important point is that Purpose is not synonymous with following a Plan or blueprint, or Preplanned - which would necessarily invoke Intelligent Design.

"...the very fact of the instrumental use proves the purpose - as life depends on and used matter, matter becomes endowed with a new form of purpose, and as our human minds depend on and use our animal bodies, we likewise add purpose to life." pg. 156

 This is explained in much better detail with introduction and use of "holonic ecology", or the theory of holons, which basically creates a symbiotic relationship between their instrumental value and their intrinsic value.

In the final quarter of the book he crosses over from the subject of Philosophy into the realm of Spirituality and theology, even being so brave as to tackle the topic of suffering. (pg. 162)

He rounds out this 'section' of spirituality with what he calls, ten tenets of evolutionary theology:

1. Our evolving universe had a distinct and dramatic beginning. This original emergence or emanation resulted from a primal cause - a primordial creative act.
2. This cause or creative act that initiated the universe can best be conceived as an "uncaused cause", or first cause.
3. The first cause is necessarily prior to and transcendent of time, space, energy, matter, and evolution itself.
4. Because the first cause transcends the finite universe, it can be conceived as being infinite, eternal, and universal. In other words, the first cause is changeless and perfect. Thus, prior to the beginning of evolution, the universe as first cause was in a state of existential perfection.
5. The creative act that brought forth the finite universe can be partially understood as an act of separation, subtraction, or kenosis, wherein perfection is removed from a part of the universe, which nevertheless remains within the encompassing container of existential perfection.
6.  The evolving universe that results from this creative act unfolds according to a self-similar pattern, process, and technique of dialectical development. And the pattern's self-similar structure suggests that this same pattern also configures the ongoing creative process of the universe as a whole.
7. From this we can hypothesize that the thesis of existential perfection is followed and partially negated by the antithesis of the finite universe, and that from the inherent tension of this thesis and antithesis, a synthesis is arising, which we recognize as evolution.
8. This synthesis emerges with life and matures through the psychosocial domain of evolution, herein free will creatures increasingly develop toward perfect through widening realizations of value  This gradual realization of perfection is achieved through the experience and creation of beauty, truth, and goodness, and related sub-values.
9. The emerging synthesis of evolution adds to the thesis of existential perfection the experience of becoming perfect - freely and creatively. The antithesis of the finite universe is thus used as the domain wherein experiential perfection is achieved through dialectical evolution.
10. This evolutionary theology illuminates the instrumental purpose of the noosphere, helps explain the existence of evil and suffering, and connects the intrinsic purpose of each person with the intrinsic purpose of the universe's first cause. 

Now in all fairness, he spends the next 13 pages expanding and better explains these 10 tenets. What is interesting is that - as suspiciously vague as some of these points might sound - they are not attempting a 'bait-and-switch' tactic. He is not secretly selling God or theism, acknowledging "even if we accept a nontemporal first cause as the most plausible account of the big band, this does not necessarily lead directly to theism; the concept of a first cause could turn out to be more of a principle than a personality, and is thus compatible with a variety of nontheistic notions regarding creativity in the cosmos  A first cause can also fit in with Hindu ideas of an impersonal Brahman, and even with some Buddhist conceptions of nondual emptiness." (pg. 171). (Sounds like the position I hold from "Most High God" Part II: Highest State and ...nothing...).

The entire process of evolution (Physiosphere, Biosphere, and Noosphere) proceeds through a process of thesis + antithesis = synthesis, including (interesting enough) the big band and creation of time-space itself. This insight would seem to echo the wisdom of Lao Tzu's Tao Teh Ching's verse 42:

"Tao gave birth to One,One gave birth to Two,Two gave birth to Three,Three gave birth to all the myriads things of the universe".

When further explaining tenets 5 and 6 he touches upon the potential Jewish Kabbalistic mysticism as well. What impressed me the most of these ten tenets are their scientific accuracy as well as their spiritual flexibility. This is not a new form of belief that sets out to replace science. This is a spirituality that transcends science. Something I think we need more of in this world. He describes what an evolved form of spirituality might look like.

"...evolutionary spirituality is not simply a new kind of religion... evolutionary spirituality begins with the recognition that religions or spiritual paths are not static institutions, but rather distinct trajectories of ongoing development with consciousness and culture." pg.218

I think this is a healthy perspective. Although most religious fundamentalists maintain otherwise, the simple fact of the matter is that religions are fluid. They change and evolve over time. There is truly no such thing as the exclusivity and claims for only "one true way". This silliness must be abandoned.

~

And finally, in chapter 9 he enters into the pragmatic world of the future of culture, ecology  sustainable economy, and short & long-term politics.

In conclusion this book has many extremely far reaching ideas touching upon topics seemingly unrelated, but distinctly sharing commonalities. However, I wish it was better written and significantly less academic and 'technical' for I fear the average reader won't make it much past the half-way point. Which would be a shame, because the great insights, observations, and wisdom would be lost.







Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the author and/or publisher through the Speakeasy blogging book review network  I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255.

Evil Fruit and the End of Religion

The Abrahamic God

Abraham is the father of three major world religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Could these “children” be related? Abraham was blessed by Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God. Who is the Most High God? Could this Most High God be the Abrahamic God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam? What happens when a Christian, a Jew, and a Muslim all pray to God? Do they all pray to the same God, and does He hear all their prayers?

The fact of the matter is that Jesus only met the messianic criterion of Priest by being of the order of Melchizedek and thus a priest of the same Most High God – not a priest of one people, the Israelites, but a priest of all people. I believe many Christians fail miserably in recognizing this point, believing they have a monopoly on God.

We are brought back to this question. How do we discover and follow - not the God of a single people - but the God of all people? How do we know and follow the Most High God?


We may very well be off the mark. In Luke 2:29-32 it clearly states that this Saviour is not exclusively for Israel only, but for all people – again tying into the idea of Jesus being a priest of the order of Melchizedek – a priest for all people.

Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for the glory to your people Israel.

 But this passage from Luke also states that He is to be “a light for revelation to the Gentiles” which is showing them the correct way and not necessarily representing them. However in John 10:11-18 (specifically 16) Jesus states something interesting:

”I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. A hired hand will run when he sees a wolf coming. He will leave the sheep because they aren't his and he isn't their shepherd. And so the wolf attacks them and scatters the flock. The hired hand runs away because he is merely hired and has no real concern for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; I know my own sheep, and they know me, just as my Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep, too, that are not in this sheepfold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice; and there will be one flock with one shepherd. The Father loves me because I lay down my life that I may have it back again. No one can take my life from me. I lay down my life voluntarily. For I have the right to lay it down when I want to and also the power to take it again. For my Father has given me this command."

He is not just the Son of God, but the Son of the Most High God. Like Melchizedek, He is a priest (representative and mediator) of the “Most High God” – the God of all humanity. (Hebrews 7:1-28). This most definitely states that the God of Jesus' purpose is beyond that of only the Jews and beyond that of what will become only the Christians.


However the story of Jesus and the Faith of the Cananite Woman (Matthew 15:21-28) would seem to suggest quite the opposite. In verse 24 Jesus quite specifically states that “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel”. Which would seem to contradict this. How can we make sense of these statements? I find that in the analogy of the vine (John 15:1-2) can we make some sense:

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. “

“…while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.” The use of the word “every” is more than suggesting a plurality. Is Jesus saying that there could be more than one branch? Most definitely, but is He saying that these are individual people or various “ways” or beliefs? Is He identifying multiple faiths and religions? Again, this is not clear. However, if we take this vine analogy and view it in the context of a family tree we find some interesting results.




When we view the “family tree” of Israel, Jesus’ statement from Matthew 15:24 (“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel”) takes on new meaning. The “lost sheep” of Israel becomes Jews (and eventually Christians) as both are from the “branch” of Israel. However, with this train of thought Muslims are not of the “branch” of Israel, but of Ishmael. But are not both children of Abraham? Could this be the “other sheep not of this sheepfold” (John 10:16)?

Ultimately it becomes an issue of whether the importance lies with a “religion” or faith being of “Israel” or of Abraham. There would seem to be evidence to support the value of being a monotheistic Abrahamic “faith”.

I believe Jesus, being a priest of the order of Melchizedek and representing man to the Most High God includes Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. I believe all have suffered serious corruption by the hand of man over the centuries.

Evil Fruit and the End of Religion

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 7:15-23, KJV

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them [false prophets]. Jesus gives direct instruction as to how to identify “false prophets”. Ultimately it is not by their words or teachings but by their actions and the results (fruits) of their actions. This forces us to carefully examine certain issues:

Islam has produced the Islamic extremist terrorists (who do not even follow the Quran 2:178 and 2:190. These verses clearly states that God does not love those who overstep the limits and that grievous suffering awaits those who do). So can we therefore say that Islam has produced “evil fruit” and condemn it to the realms of false prophets? There is some truth to this but it is somewhat of a blanket statement. The Islamic extremist terrorists are really not true Muslims, but nevertheless are still “evil fruit” of Islam. If we are to adhere to Jesus’ definition of “false prophets” and apply it to Islam, then by these same definitions we must begin looking at other religions.

Christianity has produced the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the overall eradication of the Central and South American Indians and the warfare and “conversion” of the North American Indians. The sexual abuse and pedophilia of the modern day Roman Catholic Church. The embezzlement and lying of certain Christian televangelists. There is no shortage of “evil fruit” in Christianity. And before we use the excuse that these were acts of individuals and not reflective of Christianity as a whole we need to revisit our thoughts and opinions of the previously mentioned Islam Extremists. I believe Christianity has produced “evil fruit” . I also believe that Jesus had no intention of beginning a new religion. If asked the question, Was Jesus Christ Christian, the answer would be, no.

Atheism (as a belief-system) has produced the Nietzsche-like belief or philosophy of the Nazi-party whose fruition was a World War and The Holocaust. I would very much like to meet an individual who would seriously state that this was not “evil fruit” .

Judaism becomes an interesting religion when viewed from this point of view. As mentioned in The Flawed Priesthood , it is not incorrect to say that Jesus was Jewish, neither is it completely true. Jesus was a Jewish heretic. Jesus systematically “disassembled” the Jewish priesthood and threatened its very foundation. It is obvious that Judaism was “off course” and in need or correction.

The genocide that the Israelites committed under the leadership of Moses (primarily in the book of Numbers) is most definitely questionable. The “commissioning” and building of idols (Nehushtan), the practice of animal sacrifice, the very existence of an elitist priesthood, and the aforementioned genocide should be highly suspicious and questioned as the product of “evil fruit” .

By Jesus’ own teachings and definition of “false prophets” Islam, Christianity, Judaism - and even Atheism - have all produced “evil fruit”.

I suppose - ultimately - the Pluralist believes all spiritual paths lead to God/Being itself/monistic substrate/Universal Consciousness/Ultimate Reality - call it what you wish - that all these traditions and paths are valid.

There are many days I think I'm a Pluralist because I believe there is invaluable wisdom within the great many beliefs and traditions out there... but I'm not sure this is correct. I believe there is a great wisdom within the people of these many beliefs and traditions.
I have come to see the great three Abrahamic traditions (not its people) as institutional branches of the same tree.

"No tree has branches so foolish as to fight among themselves" Native American Wisdom

Not only have I moved beyond Christianity  but I have moved beyond that Abrahmaic faiths/institutions and abandoned the (concept of the) Abrahmanic God.

If all have produced “evil fruit” then what exactly is Jesus teaching? If none of these are correct or the truth, then what is the truth? The only conclusion I can come to is that Religion itself is “evil fruit” and as such Jesus’ teaching was not to create another religion, but to end all religion.

“If the cross is the sign of anything, it’s the sign that God has gone out of the religion business and solved all of the world’s problems without requiring a single human being to do a single religious thing. What the cross is actually a sign of the fact that religion can’t do a thing about the world’s problems – that it never did work and it never will…” Robert Farrar Capon, “The Mystery of Christ…and Why We Don’t Get It”, pg. 62

"The Enoch Factor", by Steve McSwain

(By Guest Blogger - Michel Weatherall)

The Church has lost touch with it's founder, having embraced a religion about Jesus, rather than the religion of Jesus. “The Way” was the religion of Jesus. The later religion about Jesus is what we know today as Christianity.

The Christian Church has become the modern day equivalent of the legalistic and rule-orientated Pharisees of Jesus' day. “Believers are told what to think, how to believe, and the way to live. Furthermore, most church leaders disregard the fact that their founder repudiated the religious leaders of his day for doing this to the followers of Judaism”. (pg.45)

One startling fact is that “in the last ten years... it is estimate that Christian churches have spent more than $ 100 billion on buildings and facilities. In that same time, more than 400,000,000 people have died of hunger on this planet”. pg.46

What would Jesus do?

The future of the Christian Church, with its members leaving in droves, is definitely in question. Its death is near inevitable.

Unless we can collectively abandon our desperate ego-driving pretension of spiritual certainty, Humanity's future itself is also in question. Steve McSwain words echo that of the Dalai Lama. (“Until there is peace among the religions of the world, there will be no peace in the world”).

I like nearly everything Steve McSwain has to say. I especially like the fact that “The Enoch Factor” isn't attempting to re-market or repackage the old stagnant religion of Christianity; to identify the demise of the modern day church, yet selling its same flawed values.

Truth be known, I believe this direction is the only choice that has any hope for a future – not just Christianity's, but all of us.

His concepts are simple, truthful, yet truly revolutionary.

Funny that word, Revolutionary. Over that past 2 years I must have reviewed at least 5 books to make that claim. None of them were true. “The Enoch Factor” doesn't make that claim of itself, but it most definitely is revolutionary.

His take on certain issues are refreshing, like a breath of fresh air. Better! They're more like a spring breeze that cleans out the stagnant mold and damp of an over-long winter.

His take on the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve is close if not identical to Rob Bell's (“Velvet Elvis”). He addresses, or clearly defines, what Sin is, or might be. "The word sin means "to miss the mark"... Sin actually means "to miss who you are" - who you really are. It is to be lost in the illusion that you are your ego". (pg. 96). Although he doesn't come out and say it, it is clear Original Sin is abandoned. (pg. 167).He would seem to agree with LinYutang's “The Importance of Living” in that man was never meant to live forever. That death is not punishment for Sin.

"Salvation as it is called in the Christian tradition, or Enlightenment, as in Eastern traditions, is the opening of your spiritual eyes" (pg. 133).
We can begin seeing Jesus' Way as having an unofficial Buddhist take, with Salvation resembling and striving to attain the perpetual "Now", with escape from the regrets of the past and the anxiety of the future. 

Sin, Creationism, Salvation; McSwain's underlying point isn't to argue and debate these beliefs. His underlying point is our collective freedom from sin, our escape from Ego.

This book should force Christianity to question our man-made religion about Jesus, and much more importantly, begin our exploration of the religion of Jesus. Everything we believe we know and understand can be viewed anew.

This book isn't about Christianity. This book has further reaching ambitions. The author himself admits that he must tell the story through his own medium; his own culture and that is a Christian one. But do not be mistaken. This book isn't exclusively about Christianity. This book is about Humanity itself. It seeks a larger, more encompassing truth and has the open mindedness, tolerance, and compassion to succeed.

The book is littered with various quotes from sources that cannot be called anything but pluralistic.

The Buddha, Krishna, Lao Tzu, Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Jung, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Einstein, Sagan, atheists, singers, presidents, philosophers, theologians, authors. He truly embraces the idea of seeking out truth and wisdom wherever you find it.

In chapter 9 Steve McSwain tells the story of the death of his father and its spiritual consequences for him. This story resonated with me personally as I could relate to the time surrounding my mother's death 26 years ago. This book is difficult to read 'objectively' – in the sense of a 3^rd party reading, 'analyzing', and reviewing. It makes contact in an up-close-and-personal sort of way.

The entire of chapter 8 was most intriguing to me – so much so that I most definitely need to revisit, reread, and study it in much better detail. A near instructional guide to put you on your way to truly purging sin – and even more importantly - Ego.

At the risk of coming off sounding egotistical, this book gave me a great amount of confirmation in my non-institutional spirituality; to the point were I am forced to seriously consider myself – if not “awakened” to used the author's terms - then well on my way.

I would recommend this book for anyone that I know.
5 out of 5 Stars!

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the author and/or publisher through the Speakeasy blogging book review network  I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255.

Human Resources and the Pursuit of Empire

HR: Human Resources

Although I understand the term, I have always hated it. It more than suggests that people are a resource to be used - and when no longer needed - discarded.

I also hate companies who make the claim that they are like “a big family.” Families don't lay-off family members. Cut the pretension. Call it what it is.

From this world-view people are little more than a resource pool to feed the needs of economics and industry. Sadly, it may be true, whether I like it or not.

In today's world there is a limited pool of 'resources' available. And let's be honest here; to the modern day church, people are seen as a resource. They draw from the same pool and ultimately accomplish one thing only. Intentionally or not, they only further divide the church into smaller and smaller splinters. The direction the modern day church is headed in is “The Church of Me”; total individuality.


Ironically, it is a position the church condemns many “Spiritual-but-not-Religious” people of being guilty of.


What we have here is the Religion of the Institutional Church.


There are two Sacred Holy of Holies in the Institutional Christian Churches today.
Sabbath Observation (going to their church), and Tithing (revenue stream)
Membership and proselyting.
If simplified further, the modern day Institutional Christian Church is simply a business functioning under a business model.
Human Resources.

These two Sacred Cows – Sabbath Observation and Tithing - are absolutely untouchable. However, membership and church attendance has been and continues to drop. They know they are dying.

From my observations, this gives birth to two types of reactions. There are those out there – I'd hate to say spiritual predators because it sounds so harsh – who would take this opportunity to create their own little churches and communities (only quickening its demise), and there is the Religion of the Institutional Church who know something needs to be done but aren't sure what.

Ultimately, they will state a revival is needed - a much needed revolution is at hand! What they attempt to do however, is repackage and re-market the same old religion (with its two Sacred Cows). (New wine into old wine skins?)

(Unfortunately, I am going to be naming names and taking numbers). Of the numerous book reviews I have done over the years, John Crowder's “Seven Spirits Burning” and “Mystical Union”, Jay Bakker's “Fall to Grace”, and Andrew Farley's “The Naked Gospel” are all indicative of this; the business of Repackaging.

It is interesting that so many people turn to religion hoping to find succor  emancipation, and freedom. It's also interesting what the word 'religion' means.

“The literal meaning of the word religion is, ironically, “to return to bondage.” This word comes from two words, the prefix re meaning “to return”, and the root legare meaning “to bind”. Since everyone wants freedom, and many turn to religion to find it, the regrettable consequence is that often they get greater enslavement”. Steve McSwain's "The Enoch Factor", Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2010, pg. 45

I think the one question that the Religion of the Institutional Church feels so desperately needs to be answered is the wrong question.
How do we save the church?

We don't.

Although I cannot say the following authors or their books hold this position, they are definitely looking in the right direction. Aaron D. Taylor's “Alone with a Jihadist” and Steve McSwain's “The Enoch Factor” are good examples. Even Matt Mikalatos' “Imaginary Jesus” because it speaks of truths through fiction.

I happen to agree with the Dalai Lama when he said, “Until there is peace among the religions of the world, there will be no peace in the world”.

There cannot be peace among the world's religions when some are so focused on proselyting, membership, building numbers, and – ultimately - dreams of empire.

What does the future of Churchianity look like?
I hope there isn't one.
What does the future of Christianity look like?

I don't even think these are the correct questions.
I think Steve McSwain might have put it best,

“I feel more strongly today than ever that the future of humanity is at stake. Unless there are profound changes in human consciousness – that is, changes in how we look at each other and how we treat each other, there is little hope for humanity's survival.”Steve McSwain's "The Enoch Factor", Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2010, pg. 44

"Most High God" Part IV: Incarnate State

(Continued from Part III: Personified State)

Incarnate State

“The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding, namely Brahman, or the impersonal all-pervasive spirit; Paramatma, or the localized aspect of the Supreme within the heart of all living entities; and Bhagavan, or the supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Krsna.” A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada's “Bhagavad Gita, As It Is”,The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1983, pg. 62

Avatar or Incarnation

The Hindu God Vishnu is traditionally said to have incarnated into nine avatars. The above mentioned Krishna (Krsna) being the most popular and well known. In the case of an Avatar the human receptacle can be seen as an empty shell; having no true sense of individuality apart from the occupying deity. Although we may split hairs on definitions and terminology, for practical purposes – and outside of cultural context - there is little to no difference between a divine Incarnation and an Avatar. They are essentially the same, possibly with the Incarnation being a one-time event.

(Although not all would agree with my position. See for example Incarnation vs. Avatar: 8 Differences and Differences Between Hindu Avatars and The Incarnation of Christ. However, Kulbhushan Singhal's blog Difference Between Avatar and God makes an interested point. “A good number of spiritualists feel that every human is an Avatar, because we have in our body, a part of paramatma (Sanskrit name for God) called Atman“).

With an Incarnation, the individual is God within a human body, and thus omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (which would imply some sort of state of dual-existence), and omnibenevolent. (These in themselves are assumptions. We presume five criteria for God. We do not know these to be true – although as mentioned earlier, Sophia meets all of them).

The Incarnational state is an extremely difficult one to come to terms with while attempting to remain Human (if not impossible). Aside from a nonsensical theological construct – which would define what it is not, while never defining what it is (negative theology) - or what basically must amount to theological magic, (the Doctrine of the Trinity fits both.Ultimately I think the entire concept; the entire Doctrine of the Trinity came to birth with an attempt to handle or explain the problem of the Incarnation. In short, Christianity's and the Church's move to make Jesus God), we are really left with little other options than a voluntary kenosis (which creates the problem of a God which cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent), or a necessary involuntary kenosis (which leaves us with a Universe whose existence is dependent upon, or within, an absent deity and a powerful, but not omnipotent God – at best a pantheistic one. (See Thomas Jay Oord's book, The Nature of Love: a Theology or my book review of it)

Theophanies and Angels

I believe - outside of the context of culture - we can establish that there is little difference between Avatars and Incarnations of the divine. But into this confusing mix there are also Theophanies and Angels.

To better understand Angels we must begin by discarding everything that we claim to know yet only truly assume, and start from scratch.

Angel comes from the Greek word angelos

, meaning “messenger”.

Messenger

: n. 1 a person who carries a message. 2 a person employed to carry messages. If an angel is a messenger who carries a message from God, then this would seem to contradict God’s omnipresence. If God is everywhere what need is there for a messenger or a delivery boy? Perhaps God is simply too busy? This would contradict God’s omnipotence. So why or how can angels be justified, because angels are mentioned in the bible?
There are some interesting points we should consider:

The authors of the Old Testament seem to substitute between calling some of these manifestations “angels of the Lord” and the Lord Himself. Many times it seems to be interchangeable. Compare the following verses:



Exodus 13:21 and Exodus 14:19, both refer to the guiding pillar of cloud and fire.

"And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:" 

Exodus 13:21, KJV

"And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them:" 

Exodus 14:19, KJV

Exodus 3:2 and Exodus 3:4 are both referring to the burning bush.

"And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush [was] not consumed." Exodus 3:2 KJV

"And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here [am] I." Exodus 3:4, KJV

Also compare Judges 6:11 & 20 to Judges 6:14 & 23

(...angel of the Lord...)

"And there came an 

angel of the LORD, and sat under an oak which [was] in Ophrah, that [pertained] unto Joash the Abiezrite: and his son Gideon threshed wheat by the winepress, to hide [it] from the Midianites.” Judges 6:11, KJV

"And the 

angel of God said unto him, Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes, and lay [them] upon this rock, and pour out the broth. And he did so.” Judges 6:20 KJV

(...the Lord...)

"And 

the LORD said unto him, Peace [be] unto thee; fear not: thou shalt not die.” Judges 6:23

"And the LORD

 looked upon him, and said, Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I sent thee?” Judges 6:14 KJV With these sample passages it would seem that 'angels' and God himself would seem to be completely synonymous and totally interchangeable.

The four “senior” angels (later to be called Archangels) had individual names containing the element el, meaning “god”. Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, and Uriel.

Could angels truly not exist, at least in a way that we understand them? Could angels actually be physical unidentified manifestations of God in our world? Could this explain all the above points?

What I believe we have here is the 3rd State of God; the Incarnate State.

Exemplars

However, there is another option as oppose to a divine Incarnation. Exemplars should be contrasted with the Incarnate State simply to establish its difference. A wisdom teacher and an exemplar to such a point where the (non-divine) individual becomes such a coincidental and perfect reflection of God's Agape (love) that, for all intent and purposes, is God.

This is an important distinction because the individual's intelligence and knowledge is still limited to their technological level and culture of their time. They are not omniscient nor affect by kenosis. They can still be scientifically and factually in error. They are still restricted to their intelligence, education and the knowledge of their times.

Where an Avatar or an Incarnation would be “God in human clothing”, this would work just the opposite; “Man in God's clothing”.
This 'reverse-avatar' is purely human and absolutely non-divine.
I don't believe, to my limited knowledge, that there is a proper name or term for this state; the negative of an avatar.
Negavatar? An Exemplar.
This could be said to be 'God incarnate in metaphor'. Personally this is what I believe the heretical rabbi Yeshua of Nazareth was.

Freedom from Illusion

 “The true self of a man and the world-soul (paramatman: the universal atman) are one; they are identical... the All-Soul is the very stuff of which the human soul and its consciousness are formed, and there is no real distinction between the former and the latter. We may therefore equate Brahma, the objective All, and Atman, the subjective or particular self, and call the ultimate reality henceforth Brahman-Atman, recognizing thereby that the objective and subjective are one.” John B. Noss' “Man's Religions” Revised Edition, The Macmillan Company 1956, pg. 131

Brahman-Atman is very reminiscent of what Buddhism might call Nirvana.

Buddhism becomes an interesting branch-off of Hinduism. There's an attempt to reach a Nirvana-state, similar to the Brahman-Atman state. Whether these two things are interchangeable or not is debatable, but there is a definite similarity.

Although Buddhism doesn't easily tie into the above chart, it does have some interesting qualities. It strives to 'find the truth' or become enlightened within oneself. This echoes of the potential which lies within each and every one of us - this indwelling spirit, this Atman, this paramatma, this Divine Spark. Although the potential to get tied up in nomenclature is great, the fact is difficult to miss.

Another aspect of Buddhism is to see beyond the illusions presented in our world, or - as I would personally see it - to overcome and find personal escape from the illusion of the Edenic Birdcage. And this is done by tapping into something innate within ourselves. This same Atman, paramatma, Divine Spark, this indwelling spirit, this Divine seed of potential - call it what you wish. There is no separation between the ultimate reality or the Divine and us; only the illusion of separation.
And isn't that a message Yeshua of Nazareth taught? That the divide between Sacred and Secular was a lie? Isn't that the entire concept, whether literally or metaphorically, of God becoming Man?

This is not meant as a theology. This is simply where I find myself today.
It is a truth the resonates most strongly for me. 

"Most High God" Part III: Personified State

(Continued from Part II: Highest State)

Personified State

This is not an avatar or incarnation of deity.
This 'Personified State' of God is Spirit.
In this 'Personified State' we find a God more akin to our traditional understandings. This state of God meets our criterion of the divine. It has the five attributes. (Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnibenevolence, and Personhood).

This is a God that 'lives' within our world (and as we shall explore, within ourselves also). Ultimately we cannot in all honestly commit a non-corporal Spirit to any gender. God cannot be male or female. Maybe both – maybe neither; but not one or the other. Personally, I see this “form” of God as feminine.

The Greek word used for spirit is pneuma and is gender neuter. (It's where we get the names pneumatology and pneumology from). However, Greek was only the language the Old Testament was translated into. The Hebrew word commonly used is ruach and is feminine.

Of the approximately 89 times ruach refers to the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, only 9 are masculine (and not without some ambiguity). The other 80 are feminine and 44 of which (including the aforementioned Genesis 1:2) are used in the context of feminine verbs. (see More Than Just a Controversy: All About The Holy Spirit).

This Holy Spirit - this Personification of God's Wisdom - this feminine Sophia can be shown to display all five criteria of deity.

“For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness [omnibenevolence].” Wisdom of Solomon 7: 26 KJV (Apocrypha) 

“…kind to man, stedfast, sure, free from care, having all power, [omnipotence] overseeing all things, [a form of omnipresence] and going through all understanding,[omniscience] pure, and most subtil, spirits.” Wisdom of Solomon 7:23 KJV (Apocrypha) 

“…and being but one [she is an individual being - Personhood], she can do all things: [omnipotence] and remaining in herself, she maketh all things new: and in all ages entering into holy souls, she maketh them friends of God, and prophets.” Wisdom of Solomon 7:27 KJV (Apocrypha)

This is the same Spirit of God in Genesis 1:2 as in Proverbs 8:12 & 27.

This is the only real cognitive, active, and personhood of God. This is the Tao-like Brahman something, conscious and active. But active in our universe how?

For this we need to return to the Hindu understanding of Brahman.

“It is clear from this that Brahma is all that is objective, the whole external world given to us by our senses, all that exists outside of us. “But this is only half the fact. Brahma is also all that is subjective, the whole inward world of feeling and self-consciousness, with which the innermost self is identified... The term for the inner self here employed is atman... in a deeper sense it refers to the innermost and unseen self of a man as distinct from his body, his sense-organs, and his brain, that is to say, his transcendental self or ego.” John B. Noss,“Man's Religions”, Revised Edition, The Macmillan Company 1956, pg. 130

We are introduced to something called the Atman, or sometimes called paramatma. Paramatma is the localized aspect of the Supreme (Brahman) within the hearts of all living entities. The parallel to the gnostic concept of the Divine Spark is noteworthy.

A seed – an unrealized potential within all humanity – God's indwelling Spirit. We return to the Holy Spirit, and again with the feminine ruach. We also know that the Holy Spirit has everything to do with Pentecost.

Wasn't Pentecost an isolated moment in history? A one time event? The moment when the Holy Spirit “comes out of hiding”; takes up residence in Man's hearts and souls.

But isn't history divided into Pre-Pentecost times and Post-Pentecost times? What if the story of Pentecost is taken as a metaphor rather then an isolated historical moment?

“Is the greatest truth about Adam and Eve and the fruit that it happened, or that it happens? This story... is true for us because it is our story. We have all taken the fruit. We have all crossed boundaries. We have all made decisions to do things our way and then looked back and said to ourselves, What was I thinking? The fruit looked so great to Adam and Eve for those brief moments, but the consequences were with them for the rest of their lives. Their story is our story. We see ourselves in them. “This is why the Bible is still so powerful. These ancient stories are our stories. These stories are reflective of how things are... And this is why the Bible loses its power for so many communities. They fall into the trap of thinking that the Bible is just about things that happened a long time ago.” Rob Bell's “Velvet Elvis”, pgs. 58-59

Similar to a point Rob Bell makes in “Velvet Elvis” in reference to Adam and Eve and the Fall, that this story may be true on a daily level. That each and every individual goes through their story, their temptation, their betrayal; that it is Man's story. The same stands true with an alternate interpretation (The Edenic Birdcage – and incidentally, both versions of this story can be true and stand side-by-side.)

Pentecost may be a similar wisdom story or a parable. Pentecost is when the Holy Spirit “comes out of hiding”; takes up residence in Man's hearts and souls. When we become her temple.

If the Pentecostal story is viewed in this same light, the focus ceases to be on a individual historical moment. We no longer need to view history as Pre-Pentecostal and Post-Pentecostal. God's Spirit is present and always has been. It becomes a dormant seed of potential within all human being (and even all living entities). We can begin to see what the Hindus see as the Atman, the paramatma within us all. What the Gnostics viewed as the Divine Spark. It is God's indwelling Spirit inhabiting us as a yet unrealized or unborn potential. Sophia. God the Mother.

It makes us all Sons and Daughters of God. (Granted, it's stealing away many Institutional Religion's exclusive claims to God). It is an indwelling potential all of us have, not just a select few.

Did not Jesus say that there will be others that will do greater things than himself? (John 14:12)? (Also Luke 18:19 and Mark 10:18 - Why do you call me good?).

Jesus. The Unique Son of God.
Did he really claim to be God?
Or was that thrust upon him by Christianity?
God Incarnate?
That brings us to the final states of God. The Incarnational State.



Continued on "Most High God" Part IV: Incarnate State

"Most High God" Part II: Highest State

(Continued from Part I: Omnibenevolence)

 Highest State

It is interesting to note that what we today define as “holy” is absolutely not as the Hebrews defined it. The Hebrew word of holy is kaddosh, which does not mean a state of moral perfection nor has anything to do with morality. It means “otherness”, not natural, but supernatural, not of this world, but alien.

It is only the echoes of this deity's actions that we can perceive. If the natural universe were a pond and God places his foot into the waters, we could not possibly see or even comprehend his foot but only the ripples of water that emanate from it. These ripples are in fact a personification of the Shekinah.

This aspect of God – echo, ripple, emanation – is Sophia (Proverbs 8:12), the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2), and the only real cognitive, active, and 'personhood' of God.


If God “steps” into our natural universe from its external, supernatural (holy - kaddosh) state, we could only see the ripples of its steps in the pond. This is the only aspect of God we can perceive. This is God's echo or ripple or emanation. This aspect of God is very much dependent on our Created Universe or it would not – could not – exist without our universe.

Certain Rabbis spoke about the Spirit of God brooding over creation and they compared it to a rider of a horse. While the rider is on the horse the rider depends on the horse but the rider is never the less superior to it and has control over it. The term Shekinah comes from the Hebrew word shakan that means to pitch one's tent. The Shekinah was not a conceived, separate divine being, but the presence of God in our world – a Personified State of God. This was the Jewish rabbinical concept of the Shekinah. Only within a time-flowing, organized universe does God become Personified. (Personhood – cognitive and conscious even). The act of the universe/world transforming from Chaos into Order 'allows' God to Personify. When God Personifies the more Order ensues.

While the Shekinah – Sophia, Holy Spirit, the ripple - is God's personification within our world, the question remains, what is that aspect of God – the alien (kaddosh), unknowable, incomprehensible and supernatural aspect that exists 'outside'? What is this Highest State of God?

To this, I look to Hinduism.

“The ground of all being, whether material or spiritual, whether in the form of men, beasts, or gods, heaven, earth, or hell., is an all-inclusive, unitary reality, beyond sense-apprehension, ultimate in substance, infinite in essence, and self-sufficient, it is the only really existent entity. This reality is most commonly called Brahma. No precise definitions are attempted. 

“...regularly refer to Brahman as a neuter something, with out motion or feeling, the impersonal matrix from which the universe has issued and to which it will in time return. This it, this One Thing, is the substantial substratum of everything.” John B. Noss,“Man's Religions”, Revised Edition, The Macmillan Company 1956, pg. 129-130

Most traditional concepts of God, especially monotheistic ones, hold five attributes to God. Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence. Omnibenevolence, and Personhood.

This 'Highest State' of God is significantly more like the Hindu concept of Brahman; akin to the Taoists Eternal Tao – impersonal. Not a being or an entity. It most definitely is a step aware from an  anthropomorphic concept of God.

“Tao can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao. Names can be named, but not the Eternal Name.” Tao Teh Ching, verse 1

Like negative theology, God's nature is so absolutely different from our existence that it is utterly incomprehensible. “God” is by nature one which language cannot describe.

As the Hindu concept of Brahman holds, it is the substantial substratum of everything. A total summation. A gestalt, similar to the Gnostic's Pleroma, or fullness.

It does not meet all five traditional standards.
It cannot be all-knowing because It is not conscious or cognate. It lacks Personhood. It is impersonal. It cannot be said to be omnipotent simply because it does not consciously choose to do anything.

It is debatable whether It would be omnibenevolent or not. You don't need a mind or consciousness to feel. We could even debate whether being omnibenevolent requires feeling love, but rather being Love itself.

The only criterion this Highest State would clearly maintain is omnipresence.

In the opening lines of the bible (Genesis 1:2) we find the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit, Sophia – God personified) hovering or brooding over “the filaments” or “the waters”. It is uncertain and unclear what “the filaments” or “the waters” are, but one thing is clear. There is no mention of the Spirit of God creating them. They are preexistent (probably eternally co-existent) and the building blocks of everything and anything, spiritual or material. Even from a biblical perspective we find an evasive Tao-like Brahman something.



Continued on "Most Highest God" Part III: Personified State