These are of course, just my personal beliefs, without intention of putting others down for their chosen journey to serve God. That is, of course, God as each of us understands God to be.
The notion that God, by definition, must mean the exact same thing to everyone is rather silly. We can only comprehend what we are capable of comprehending through our own actual experiences matched with the wisdom we have attached to it. Since we can believe information in our head without having it coincide with our hearts, it takes years of experience to build congruency.
Hopefully, for each of us, there comes that great space in time, when we have walked through enough murk and mire to draw solid conclusions, aligning our minds and hearts as one.
That said, from my own experiences and study, God is not a gender or a body...basically the word God is nothing more than a sound our mouths make when trying to define the concept of how positive energy and the connectivity of our human spirit gives us power to transcend the physical world.
The word "God" is used in connection with the practice of nurturing the non-physical world that thrives in the heart and inspires people to share their journey with others. How people choose to do that is their personal freedom. Commonly, in religious context, written works and testimonies are used to teach and share this wisdom.
We understand through birth that love feels better than hate, kindness is more attractive, a smile can radiate from a persons' soul and be felt by another, and that many things exist that we will never see - at least with our eyes. Since our culture defines and shapes the context of our thought processes, we learn to both conform and question its logic.
In effect, angry cultures beget angry people and loving cultures beget loving people. How those cultures surround the family, state, country or globe depends largely on the type of wisdom being taught.
In our physical world there is love and anger, and equally in our spiritual world, there is love and anger.
Spiritual wisdom based in love brings vision to the heart promoting goodwill, nurturing and acceptance. Loving spiritual wisdom acknowledges human imperfection as natural and by practicing humility, forgiveness, gratitude, and generosity, an individual can find peace. Who can argue with that? Maybe people who have never felt the depth true love can reach (whether through choice or ignorance) would deny it's worth. By this definition, I connect loving spiritual wisdom with the word God. For me, God is a feel-good word. Many religious teachings are based in this wisdom.
Spiritual wisdom based on shades of anger (human emotion) bring deception to the heart promoting judgment, conformity, static beliefs, shame, guilt and fear. When spiritual wisdom acknowledges human imperfection as sinful and wrong, it leans toward promoting continuous suffering. By this definition, the word God becomes more defined through human emotions than supreme connectivity. Many religious teachings are based in this wisdom. (What comes to my mind is the Adam and Eve story. It appears to be based on the assumption God didn't understand human nature well enough and therefore was disappointed because they acted like average human beings. I've always wondered how God could be surprised by His own creations.)
If the word "God" is connected with negative energy like the practice of condemnation to Earth or Hell (which makes people cringe) how can believers spiritually transcend above judgmentalism? Judgmentalism creates chaos. Chaos creates confusion and that's said to be of...you know....Hell.
I think at a certain point, most people who have learned religious concepts, take the best of it, apply it to their lives, and set aside what is contradictory - without feeling a need to argue about it. Because they understand the concept of "God" as a spiritual guide is important to them.
Since the word "God" is simply a sound we make with our mouths, and we attach our own meaning to it, then we ought to be specific about what we want to feel when we say it.
For example, I don't concern myself with those who feel disdain or disgust about the word "God", because they designed their own meaning and they have to live with that. I sure won't avoid saying "God" in front of those persons either, in fact it amuses me to watch "haters" cringe about a word they are responsible for giving a bad meaning to. Especially when they blame others for that negative creation.
Figuratively speaking, God is one of the largest words there is...
Monday, March 23, 2015
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Sadness Versus Anger - What Promotes Change?
I found this quote tonight (but there is no author cited) http://www.coolnsmart.com/sad_quotes/.
At first glance, this seems to make sense. We can all agree that when we show an increased degree of assertive/aggressive emotion, we tend to take action. Is it accurate to say this quote compares sadness with anger? By the author's definition, what makes them different?
The author implies that sadness renders us inactive while anger drives us to take the lead. So let's take a look into our past and choose a time when we remember feeling very sad, and ponder that experience for a moment. Did our sadness render us immobile or move us into action? Chances are, sadness made us feel weak. In this light, does sadness equal weakness while anger equals strength?
Does the author suggest that sadness cripples us, while anger strengthens us?
Since anger, most of the time, is a result of losing one's sense of intellectual capacity for understanding the whole picture, I may not agree that anger is a basis for strength. That being said, allowing anger to be the driving force behind change does not necessarily make it worthy of anything more than a reactive response with an unstable outcome because extreme emotions tend to lack logical reasoning.
Setting anger aside, let's look at sadness. What is sadness and what is its function? Is it the equivalent of feeling pain from a flesh wound? If so, then we should first evaluate how to deal with the pain before we can move in a forward direction. A wound needs treatment, so whether it is physical or emotional, retreating to a safe haven is the only natural thing to do. Does this define sadness as a weakness or a gravitation toward self preservation? Does this represent an incapacity or does it represent intellectual reasoning? If it is intellectual reasoning, then sadness boils down to an absorption of unwelcome input. It is not a fragility at all.
We instinctively know not to take action until our wounds are tended to, which means we wait until we grow stronger. At this point, it is healthier not to allow anger alone to motivate us toward making change, but the acceptance of reality. A good dose of self honesty can move us into a powerful type of action. Honesty and the acknowledgement of principles, which I believe are reason without dependance on emotion; truth that stands alone without need for condemnation. Principles are the perception of what is right, without the reliance on anger. Actions based on principles are more deliberate in nature and generally have a stable outcome because they have been thought out more carefully. So quite possibly, change takes place as a desire to heal wounds, rather than being motivated by anger.
"Usually when people are sad, they don’t do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change."
At first glance, this seems to make sense. We can all agree that when we show an increased degree of assertive/aggressive emotion, we tend to take action. Is it accurate to say this quote compares sadness with anger? By the author's definition, what makes them different?
The author implies that sadness renders us inactive while anger drives us to take the lead. So let's take a look into our past and choose a time when we remember feeling very sad, and ponder that experience for a moment. Did our sadness render us immobile or move us into action? Chances are, sadness made us feel weak. In this light, does sadness equal weakness while anger equals strength?
Does the author suggest that sadness cripples us, while anger strengthens us?
Since anger, most of the time, is a result of losing one's sense of intellectual capacity for understanding the whole picture, I may not agree that anger is a basis for strength. That being said, allowing anger to be the driving force behind change does not necessarily make it worthy of anything more than a reactive response with an unstable outcome because extreme emotions tend to lack logical reasoning.
Setting anger aside, let's look at sadness. What is sadness and what is its function? Is it the equivalent of feeling pain from a flesh wound? If so, then we should first evaluate how to deal with the pain before we can move in a forward direction. A wound needs treatment, so whether it is physical or emotional, retreating to a safe haven is the only natural thing to do. Does this define sadness as a weakness or a gravitation toward self preservation? Does this represent an incapacity or does it represent intellectual reasoning? If it is intellectual reasoning, then sadness boils down to an absorption of unwelcome input. It is not a fragility at all.
We instinctively know not to take action until our wounds are tended to, which means we wait until we grow stronger. At this point, it is healthier not to allow anger alone to motivate us toward making change, but the acceptance of reality. A good dose of self honesty can move us into a powerful type of action. Honesty and the acknowledgement of principles, which I believe are reason without dependance on emotion; truth that stands alone without need for condemnation. Principles are the perception of what is right, without the reliance on anger. Actions based on principles are more deliberate in nature and generally have a stable outcome because they have been thought out more carefully. So quite possibly, change takes place as a desire to heal wounds, rather than being motivated by anger.
Monday, September 12, 2011
How DO We Have a Great Relationship?
What I really would like to know is - just what is a "great" relationship? How does one (particularly, a middle-aged woman) go about having one? Do we have to read countless manuals and psychology reports before arriving at "that station", because it's sure not like buying ice cream!
All too often, in the midst of situations, I hear my mother's voice, wet with exasperation, waving her arms up in the air, asking an age-old question, "Why does everything always have to be so complicated?"
Well, do relationships really have to be? I believe, because people have told me so, that when two people are mutually attracted to each other on multiple levels that relationships should be simple. Maybe if people would stop trying so hard to reach idealistic goals...like the ones that don't require any effort or forethought, their relationship values would increase. A "happily ever after" scenario is the same as visualizing ourselves wearing skinny jeans and tight shirts and giving no thought to making the effort required to get the weight off.
So how much work or effort do we have to put out? Does it have to be hard? Maybe if we try to live one day at a time and keep life simple...maybe if we take smaller steps, we can arrive someplace that feels safe. (However, I definitely advocate reading literature about controlling our emotions and understanding ourselves). When we practice to embrace love instead of fear, we move forward.
Let's pretend great relationships could be based on...say...ten simple rules. Maybe they would read like this:
Rule #1 - Wake up, thank God you're alive, and feel grateful. (No whining).
Rule #2 - Vow to be kind to yourself that day. (No self-flagellation).
Rule #3 - Look at those near you and realize they are a child of God, just like you. (No snarling).
Rule #4 - Remember, they are like you, but they are NOT you, so respect their differences. (No criticizing).
Rule #5 - Embrace the fact that all of us aim to have a good day. (Get outside of yourself).
Rule #6 - Enable others to have that privilege by vowing to convey a positive, respectful attitude with them. (Open your heart).
Rule #7 - Listen well, and listen more. (Be forgiving).
Rule #8 - Offer positive, honest feedback, rather than silence. Mind reading is impossible, so let your loving heart be known. (Speak sincerely).
Rule #9 - Search for ways (and be creative) to act as a giver, as well as being a gracious receiver. (Be humble).
Rule #10 - Remember, you will always have more to learn. (Be a student).
If we were to read, much less follow, these rules every day, how could we have anything but a great relationship with our partner (if we ever find one)?
All too often, in the midst of situations, I hear my mother's voice, wet with exasperation, waving her arms up in the air, asking an age-old question, "Why does everything always have to be so complicated?"
Well, do relationships really have to be? I believe, because people have told me so, that when two people are mutually attracted to each other on multiple levels that relationships should be simple. Maybe if people would stop trying so hard to reach idealistic goals...like the ones that don't require any effort or forethought, their relationship values would increase. A "happily ever after" scenario is the same as visualizing ourselves wearing skinny jeans and tight shirts and giving no thought to making the effort required to get the weight off.
So how much work or effort do we have to put out? Does it have to be hard? Maybe if we try to live one day at a time and keep life simple...maybe if we take smaller steps, we can arrive someplace that feels safe. (However, I definitely advocate reading literature about controlling our emotions and understanding ourselves). When we practice to embrace love instead of fear, we move forward.
Let's pretend great relationships could be based on...say...ten simple rules. Maybe they would read like this:
Rule #1 - Wake up, thank God you're alive, and feel grateful. (No whining).
Rule #2 - Vow to be kind to yourself that day. (No self-flagellation).
Rule #3 - Look at those near you and realize they are a child of God, just like you. (No snarling).
Rule #4 - Remember, they are like you, but they are NOT you, so respect their differences. (No criticizing).
Rule #5 - Embrace the fact that all of us aim to have a good day. (Get outside of yourself).
Rule #6 - Enable others to have that privilege by vowing to convey a positive, respectful attitude with them. (Open your heart).
Rule #7 - Listen well, and listen more. (Be forgiving).
Rule #8 - Offer positive, honest feedback, rather than silence. Mind reading is impossible, so let your loving heart be known. (Speak sincerely).
Rule #9 - Search for ways (and be creative) to act as a giver, as well as being a gracious receiver. (Be humble).
Rule #10 - Remember, you will always have more to learn. (Be a student).
If we were to read, much less follow, these rules every day, how could we have anything but a great relationship with our partner (if we ever find one)?
Friday, June 17, 2011
The "Swim Lessons" of Life
Everyone knows if you throw a dog in water, it's part of their instincts to start paddling. If it isn't, well then, don't throw them in the water again because they'll probably drown. There are dogs that just aren't swimmers, that's all.
Growing up in a large family in the 60's, we used that same simple logic on everything. Needless to say, we all learned to swim. I learned from watching and listening to what other swimmers were saying, and besides, it felt awful to snort and cough water out of my nose. There was my ego too, of course. Being the last of six kids, I was under some major pressure to prove I could do what they could do.
Those were real swimming lessons. That style of learning set the stage for many other lessons too. Like knowing you'll get blackmailed if you tell on your brother who tricked you into burning your fingers off, for example.
No matter what the issue was, the true nature of cause and effect always came to the forefront; there was no escaping the consequences. It boiled down to simply choosing which consequence you could live with.
When I became a parent myself, working all sorts of long hours, and keeping up with the daily chores, I found myself relying on that same simple logic to spill over onto my children.
So, as often as I could, I took them to the lake, river, and city pools every summer. Of course, I didn't join them in the water all that much because I didn't like how I looked in a bathing suit, and at the time, I smoked too much. Regardless, I still felt like I was doing the right thing by providing them with the opportunity to swim.
Fast forward...
My daughter-in-law (who was on a school swim team) informed me, quite frankly, that my son can't swim.
My mind went into a panic (Oh my God! Wow! How did that happen....? I thought I set the stage for him...how did I not know that?)
In my bewilderment, I responded slowly, saying that I guess he must not have wanted to swim very badly or he probably would have figured it out.
Well, needless to say, I fell from grace (assuming I ever had any with her to begin with) and my poor neglected son...well...how could I have done that to him?
I seriously felt bad, questioning and doubting my abilities as a parent. My lack of knowing that my own son couldn't swim, certainly had to be grounds to prove me as an unworthy and inferior mother. (Especially since I was raised Catholic, the remorse was difficult to bear). I struggled deeply with it.
A month later, I read on Face Book where my daughter-in-law posted that my son "never stood a chance" because I never gave him swim lessons. (Uh oh.. now the world knows...) She publicly "told on me".
...But wait!
Wait just a minute...I did too give him swim lessons! I gave him the same lessons I was given and they worked for me, and all of the kids I knew. I didn't know people gave formal swim lessons back then, (for crying out loud) any more than I figured you needed to teach a dog to swim.
I've since absolved myself of that awful guilt, and actually I feel deeply grateful. If my daughter-in-law wants to teach my son how to swim, I think that's really cool. I believe he will love it (as I thought he already had) and all will be remedied.
Either way, the old saying "sink or swim" became popular for a reason...
It's always been and always will be, one of the best lessons I have ever had.
Growing up in a large family in the 60's, we used that same simple logic on everything. Needless to say, we all learned to swim. I learned from watching and listening to what other swimmers were saying, and besides, it felt awful to snort and cough water out of my nose. There was my ego too, of course. Being the last of six kids, I was under some major pressure to prove I could do what they could do.
Those were real swimming lessons. That style of learning set the stage for many other lessons too. Like knowing you'll get blackmailed if you tell on your brother who tricked you into burning your fingers off, for example.
No matter what the issue was, the true nature of cause and effect always came to the forefront; there was no escaping the consequences. It boiled down to simply choosing which consequence you could live with.
When I became a parent myself, working all sorts of long hours, and keeping up with the daily chores, I found myself relying on that same simple logic to spill over onto my children.
So, as often as I could, I took them to the lake, river, and city pools every summer. Of course, I didn't join them in the water all that much because I didn't like how I looked in a bathing suit, and at the time, I smoked too much. Regardless, I still felt like I was doing the right thing by providing them with the opportunity to swim.
Fast forward...
My daughter-in-law (who was on a school swim team) informed me, quite frankly, that my son can't swim.
My mind went into a panic (Oh my God! Wow! How did that happen....? I thought I set the stage for him...how did I not know that?)
In my bewilderment, I responded slowly, saying that I guess he must not have wanted to swim very badly or he probably would have figured it out.
Well, needless to say, I fell from grace (assuming I ever had any with her to begin with) and my poor neglected son...well...how could I have done that to him?
I seriously felt bad, questioning and doubting my abilities as a parent. My lack of knowing that my own son couldn't swim, certainly had to be grounds to prove me as an unworthy and inferior mother. (Especially since I was raised Catholic, the remorse was difficult to bear). I struggled deeply with it.
A month later, I read on Face Book where my daughter-in-law posted that my son "never stood a chance" because I never gave him swim lessons. (Uh oh.. now the world knows...) She publicly "told on me".
...But wait!
Wait just a minute...I did too give him swim lessons! I gave him the same lessons I was given and they worked for me, and all of the kids I knew. I didn't know people gave formal swim lessons back then, (for crying out loud) any more than I figured you needed to teach a dog to swim.
I've since absolved myself of that awful guilt, and actually I feel deeply grateful. If my daughter-in-law wants to teach my son how to swim, I think that's really cool. I believe he will love it (as I thought he already had) and all will be remedied.
Either way, the old saying "sink or swim" became popular for a reason...
It's always been and always will be, one of the best lessons I have ever had.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
No, We Are Not Born Alone...Nor Do We Die Alone...
When raindrops fall from the sky, though they may fall independently, they are all a part of the same molecular structure. When they are grouped together, they unite without hesitation and simply form a bigger drop of water (unless there are opposing molecular structures trying to mix in). The larger the drop of water, the more power they have to survive.
Humans are the same way. We appear to come into this world alone and die alone, but that perception is only an illusion. Since, as humans, we are made up of the same molecular structure, we are just as connected to each other as water droplets are connected to a pond, lake, or ocean, and our connection determines our survival.
All of the elements of the earth work together in some natural way. There is no purpose for dirt without plants, plants without water, water without sun... Therefore, there is also no purpose for humans to stand alone. Procreation is not a singular act. It is no different than two droplets of water uniting to form a larger droplet.
Therefore, it is the individual human mind that creates its own story of aloneness, out of the need, desire, or a teaching that the individual is unique in some unnatural way.
Picture an individual droplet of water, shunning the other droplets of water, believing it is different...and unique.
How different would that water droplet have to be, in order to make its uniqueness a reality? What role would that difference play in it's existence as a singular droplet of water?
As humans, we may have unique fingerprints; however, since they can be removed, their role is small in the scheme of life. Our survival skills make us different, but those traits cannot qualify as unique or separate. Since the law of nature teaches us that opposites attract, stronger humans help weaker humans survive.
From an expanded perspective, humans are all the same, and therefore connected in both the physical world and the spiritual world. So what would make us separate in the spiritual world if it were not purely individual perception? Do the stories we create in our minds, for whatever reason, solely determine whether we live a life feeling connected or feeling alone?
If we visualize our hearts uniting as humans, in the same way droplets of water unite, there is no deliberate purpose for anyone to be spiritually alone.
The concept of being born alone and dying alone is just another illusion of the human ego.
Humans are the same way. We appear to come into this world alone and die alone, but that perception is only an illusion. Since, as humans, we are made up of the same molecular structure, we are just as connected to each other as water droplets are connected to a pond, lake, or ocean, and our connection determines our survival.
All of the elements of the earth work together in some natural way. There is no purpose for dirt without plants, plants without water, water without sun... Therefore, there is also no purpose for humans to stand alone. Procreation is not a singular act. It is no different than two droplets of water uniting to form a larger droplet.
Therefore, it is the individual human mind that creates its own story of aloneness, out of the need, desire, or a teaching that the individual is unique in some unnatural way.
Picture an individual droplet of water, shunning the other droplets of water, believing it is different...and unique.
How different would that water droplet have to be, in order to make its uniqueness a reality? What role would that difference play in it's existence as a singular droplet of water?
As humans, we may have unique fingerprints; however, since they can be removed, their role is small in the scheme of life. Our survival skills make us different, but those traits cannot qualify as unique or separate. Since the law of nature teaches us that opposites attract, stronger humans help weaker humans survive.
From an expanded perspective, humans are all the same, and therefore connected in both the physical world and the spiritual world. So what would make us separate in the spiritual world if it were not purely individual perception? Do the stories we create in our minds, for whatever reason, solely determine whether we live a life feeling connected or feeling alone?
If we visualize our hearts uniting as humans, in the same way droplets of water unite, there is no deliberate purpose for anyone to be spiritually alone.
The concept of being born alone and dying alone is just another illusion of the human ego.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)