Actually, fhansen, the christianist way is both deceptive and, in my opinion, dangerous due to its misleading dualisms. This is, off hand, evident from your calling death a āproblem.ā And one of the greatest problems engendered by the christianist view is implied in your claim that we are helpless against it by ourselves. This is yet another dualism reserved for the subject/object mode of perception and evaluation that is typical of religionists not yet adept in the basis of spirituality that is beyond thought and its limitations. That is not to be flip about the sanctity of the passage of death, or to say that there is not comfort in having kindred spirits around one at that time. But in the last analysis, we each die āalone,ā or on our own.
The key is in the Identity statements in the Bible, those statements in other traditions being known to be descriptive of actual states of understanding accessible through various means to those who make the effort, or who inadvertently succumb to the mental circumstances that lead to such a realization. That realization is of the Love Nature itself, which when known leaves no man alone. The feeling of being a discreet human ego is itself the āfallā that has within it the seeds of its own resurrection. It is the way to this resurrection that has been obscured by the Church in its dialogic process as applied to the original Teachings that showed this Way in the Jesus story, or much earlier in the nearly identical Iusu (etymologically the same name, as well as -isius as in Theo- or Dion-isius.) story that was imported by the Hebrews from Egypt.*
Love itself is the Way, The Truth, and the Life, or Light. Since the transformation we speak of here is in the realm of identity>Identity, Jesus, (Ieshua) necessarily spoke of Himself as being One with, as do all who attain that state. But that is why Jesus was accused of blasphemy, isnāt it? Do you think He might fare better if he appeared today in a business suit and taught what He actually did then? I think not.
It is hard to swallow, I know. It takes many years to go from āNO!ā to āMaybeā¦ā through much consideration of history and philosophy and deep introspection, to āHoly God, I wasnāt decieved!!!ā Some are fortunate and see clearly due to some instance of insight through diligent work. Grace might be a good word for that. Some only ever perceive it as an intellectual understanding. However, the result is always shown as the fruit of the living understanding and practice of both forms of the Golden Rule, because at last the āotherā is seen and understood as no different than self. That is the root of morality and justice. Why do you think the two great commandments are what they are? They are not just āCatholic,ā fhansen, they are how it works. Any time, any place any culture, intellect, gender, whatever. It is just how it is. It is the function of Love itself welcoming back its own, even if they thought they were separated. It is also why it says from time immemorial to āKnow ThySelf.ā That is neither a Gnostic nor a frivolous admonition.
Find, if you can, Maurice Nicollās
The New Man: an interpretation of some parables and miracles of Christ. Look up the parable of the prodigal son. It is very instructive. You might also read the introductory material to
Basic Self Knowledge as it is available on Amazon. For a record of the stringent self criticism and introspection necessary for such a transformation, one might read
Pathways Through to Space by Franklin Merrel-Wolff. Or consider Aquinasā last few months on Earth.
I have found, with great difficulty, because at first I didnāt have someone like me or my friends to point them, that we humans are very incompetent about how we think about religious matters, relying on mostly emotional and habitual information, even in the case of converts. It is useful in this regard to consider such a fun guidebook to religious sanity as the unfortunately titled
Insights for the Age of Aquarius by Gina Cerminara. She takes the reader in a very well annotated way through considerations regarding religious thought that donāt even occur to the vast majority of the faithful. They didnāt to me.
It was very difficult for me until I found someone who opened a whole new world of meaning and understanding that made my former Catholicism pale. I know that is a strong statement, but being someone who was as conscientiously devotional as myself saying this, you might give it an ounce of consideration. How easy might it be to find oneās own belief lacking in answers to a radical conscious event in oneās life? But my pain at the failure of my birth religion to show competency in the matter of my own transformative experience was overcome and glorified in a new Way of understanding not spoken of in the Church, or too secretively for me to hear despite much probing, anyway. I now see how it is all there, really, but very, very obscured and difficult to get to. There are are simpler ways that yet respect what you have come to so far.
Love is on the field, my friend. It conquers all and is ALL, and is therefor all important.
Code:
* You might read related posts #s 506, 522, 525, & 531 at [forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=387061&page=22](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=387061&page=22) Why Evolution Doesn't Matter...
