One of my weaknesses is I believe you interpret life the same way I do. I think you think like I think.

Extrapolate this concept to a much grander scale…to the scale of infinity, where we meet God. Somewhere in the grand, human process, we went there, came back and then continued with our day-to-day lives. As we went about our ordinary lives we developed religious and spiritual beliefs in a limited, human state of consciousness. One of these is our definition of God. Most western religions claim to be based on the Bible, which is a source that generates an image of a very human-like God. This result is not surprising with words like, “God created man in his own image.”

Throughout history, we have assigned a “personage” to God which has many human characteristics; we see God in human terms and give him a human likeness. We gave God ears (He listens to us); we gave Him a mouth and larynx (God talks to us); we gave Him feelings like dissatisfied, displeased, and unhappy if we do something outside His rules.

I think God is not a person…especially not in the way that’s been spawned in our minds.

In several books I’ve read recently, God lets us know that he is nothing like we think. In The Shack, he deliberately takes on the appearance of a woman, and then proceeds to call himself “Papa.” In Conversations With God, he very directly states, “I am not what you think.” And although it was not their intention, the authors of Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness gave us the preliminary framework we can use to begin to grasp a possible nature of God. All of these accounts show an image of God that is very unlike anything I have encountered.

For now, I don’t think I am capable of expanding my consciousness to the point of infinity, so I’ll take small steps. I first choose to walk away from my earlier belief that God is human-like. Next, I choose to believe that God is nothing like I imagine. Then I choose to allow God to take any shape He prefers. After all…He is God.

Then again, what do I know? I’m just an ordinary guy with a weakness, who thinks you think like I think.

Curiously,
David Wine

I started watching a 2-hour special on The History Channel recently about the multiple predictions that have been made for December 21, 2012. I was disappointed and turned off the show after twenty minutes. The sensationalism and hype were excessive. There were too many commercials (of course). The show had very little bona fide substance. (Reminds me of politics.)

But I do wonder what will happen in December 2012.

• Will it be the end of the world?
• Does California slide into the ocean?
• Will Earth be struck by a comet?
• Maybe a massive volcano will erupt, creating a massive ash cloud, blocking the sun and starting the next ice age
• Perhaps the north and south poles will literally flip causing another global deluge, like Noah’s flood.
• Or maybe the UFO’s will stop cloaking, come out of hiding and the aliens will take over.
• Could be the second coming of Jesus.
• It might be nuclear war or a continent-destroying tsunami.

I am dramatizing too much. I actually have created peace within myself about whatever happens.

Slanting more optimistically, maybe humans will develop an increased sense of intuition, allowing us to communicate without speech (The Great Shift in Human Consciousness?).

Maybe we’ll talk with angels.

Or perhaps we’ll finally be able to hear God.

That would be a noteworthy transformation.

Curiously,
David Wine

“I talk to everyone. All the time. The question is not to whom do I talk, but who listens.”
— God

In Conversations with God : An Uncommon Dialogue (Book 1) by Neale Donald Walsch.

(An email exchange with one of my sons…)

Me: WWJD. What does that mean? I know it’s an acronym for What Would Jesus Do, but still
I wonder what it means.

A friend told me it was a motto that reminded her to act in a manner Jesus would approve of. I don’t like the philosophy. It seems like Motivation By Guilt. “If I act a certain way, then Jesus will approve and I will be in His good graces.”

Jesus’ intention wasn’t to teach a guilt-laden philosophy. It’s not what He was all about. He was all about love. Not guilt.

Zac: I don’t have a connection with the emotion of guilt in the same way you do because I was never taught it. However I have studied the question “Is man good or evil from birth?” I believe that someone who asks WWJD strongly agrees that man is born evil and that man must constantly do good deeds for redemption… or give up and do bad deeds because it’s easier.

WWJD is an idea that clearly formed AFTER Jesus’ death. Paul and Peter both taught the concept of WWJD. Unfortunately it never fully developed into “What would Peter do?” or “What would Paul do?” It almost did but no one at the beginning of Christianity took the full leap.

“What would we do better than our predecessors?” would be a slightly better question. I can’t speak for generations past, but my generation (yours too) has asked “What would our parents do?” and then we did the opposite. The trick is to live without regret AND learn from your mistakes at the same time. What would David do now? What would David do next time? It’s not an easy skill to accept and move on to accept again.

Me: Are you saying“WWJD” is a motto of guilt — but “What Would David Do” is more like me encouraging me to live by my highest values?

Zac: If more people assumed that man was born good, more people would ask internally “What would I do?” and then act in the best possible way they know. It’s really not a question of “what is globally moral?” but a question of “what is locally (or personally) moral?” Sometimes the two will conflict and that’s okay.

I believe the real conflict comes when asking WWJD becomes a quest for global morality.

Me: That feels true! Jesus focused on the thing of the moment, taking care of his local (personal) values and look what he accomplished. His story is about someone who taught higher principles and values; who enjoyed healing the sick and lame; who performed miracles for the purpose of bringing good to peoples’ lives. He didn’t act for the purpose of fame or notoriety. He loved people and enjoyed sharing His love. His story doesn’t include, “If you don’t act the way I tell you, then I will heap guilt on you.” He simply loved.

So seriously, WWDD? …or WWZD?

Zac: Is that egotistical? Did Jesus ask “What should I do?” Jesus taught people to act like him and yet we have not had a Christian messiah since him. There have been some saints but no prophets. Ironic that it had to end with him.

Still inquisitive,
David Wine

On January 29 I asked: How Big Is The Universe? In that blog I wondered, “What are the things I currently believe to be THE TRUTH, but given more time, will discover to be false?” Today’s guest blogger, Zac Wine (Cambridge, MA), follows my questions with a few of his own —

—————————
It’s ironic that we are still constantly looking and finding perfect guardians of health. A few hundred years ago, man was in search of the fountain of youth. You know, the actual fountain that springs up from the ground that grants eternal youth to whomever drinks from it. Little did we know that we would still be looking for it now, in this century, in this time of awakening, in different physical forms like heroine … or Prozac.

On top of the food chain of things we do not know is death. Or not so much death itself. You really only have a few choices when it comes to death itself: going quietly into the light or going out extravagantly (and maybe painfully). The great unknown really is what happens after death. There are so many ideas that man can choose from. Most men I know (yes, and women, I know some of them too) see all the ideas and pick and choose their beliefs like it was a buffet table. But what is the truth? What actually happens? Is one right? Are many right? Are any right? What would be the great unknown if we knew for certain about what did happen after death?

And somewhere during this search we forget to wonder about the glory of a short life, a short life often wasted on things we do not want or like to do. Instead of describing blue to someone that cannot see, try instead to describe it to someone that can see. Can you do it without using examples of blue? Can you do it without using science (or religion, for that matter)? Now instead of trying to unlock the great unknown, try to unlock the things you think you already know. Where do we come from? And I don’t mean from your mother.

Let’s all take risks and possibly be jailed, ostracized, forced to drink hemlock, beheaded, or maybe just be dead wrong from time to time. It’s from heavy failure but strong determination that great success comes.

Enjoying this glorious life!
Zac Wine

I no longer claim the religious beliefs my parents taught me, but at times I still ponder them. In those younger years, my friends and I were full of questions like:

“If the Bible tells stories about King David and his many wives–and his son Solomon who had seven hundred wives, and the Bible also says, ‘Go, and do thou likewise,’ then is it OK for me to have several wives?”

We were curious, but mostly just having a little fun with our teachers. They usually gave us a resounding “Pshaw” and continued with their lecture, flipping from one Bible text to another, building “proof” of some particular doctrine or tenet.

Now that I’m older, my new question is: If one Bible text can be used to support another in establishing a system of beliefs, then the “many wives” argument should hold as much weight as any other, shouldn’t it? How would you decide which Bible text supports or “proves” another?

Here’s an example. My teachers thought they had resolved the meaning of Biblical prophecies in Daniel and Revelation, one of which speaks of “2,300 days.” They told us that the 2,300 days in that prophecy are symbolic of 2,300 literal years, and that the “day equals a year” concept is based on two unrelated texts in Ezekiel 4:6 and Numbers 14:34. I think the “day equals a year” concept is taken out of context. But don’t take my word for it. Decide for yourself.

My inquisitive mind wonders why we should limit the “day equals a year” concept to only prophetic passages? Why not use it to explain other time-related stories, such as the story of creation? If read literally, the Biblical story of Creation teaches that the sun, moon and stars, our planet with all of its vegetation, the animals and humans were literally created in 6 days. However, if we apply the “day equals a year” model to the creation story, then maybe God took 6 years to create the Universe, the Earth and its inhabitants. While we’re at it, why not expand our thinking another notch and say “a day equals a billion years” and allow creation to take a literal 6 billion years?

Creation meets evolution!

Why can’t both theories be explained within the same, broad spectrum? I am neither a creationist nor an evolutionist. I embrace both theories…AND the other 6 theories we haven’t even discovered yet.

Actually, I think the missing link is based on a much larger concept.

From God’s perspective, “time” does not exist. It doesn’t matter if God created the world in 6 days or 6 billion years. From His perspective it would have been the same moment either way.

Well, that’s one perspective. Here’s another —

God is capable of anything. He’s able to create an entire Universe, including our Earth, with ‘age’ already existing in its structure. Maybe God did create our earth in 6 days and, while He was at it, had a little fun and made it with 4.6 billion years of “age” already built in.

After all, He is God….

What’s your theory? Maybe it’s one of the other 6.

Inquisitively,
David Wine