Another Argument with Crossed Signals
There was a maxim often repeated when I was growing up that one never ‘tempts the gods.’ My ‘sense of’ justice and unfairness peaked early for me for which I was punished. When I was a child, I was puzzled that the big people did not take issue with this unfairness. Later I questioned, why a positive statement could not be made without the old fear following, ‘if the gods allow?’ Or when humanity graduated to one god, the dictum became, ‘if god wills.’ It is a dastardly thing to do to people, this division of desires and penalty. The world criticizes the negative attitude and says you must be positive. And churches on the other hand teach free will and then hangs it all with providing it is ‘god’s will.’
The Teacher Speaks. . . .Is it much of a free choice when one desires the good and then must have it tagged with if god allows? Again we must look at beginning and see where the churches fail, if they do. Our anthropomorphic god must be dusted off periodically if we are not to destroy ourselves. In the beginning there was much power thrust onto the priests and this was with people’s choice and desire. Who wanted full responsibility for his actions? Who wanted the knowledge that would free man and allow him to assume the course of his life? Look at it fairly. The church simply took upon itself to give man what he wanted. He wanted a father god to look out for him. The chain of command grew and soon there was no differentiation between the nearest priest and the almighty god. The priest was father in fact as well as fancy. He absolved the sins, he raised the Eucharist and played the part as the connection between man and his god. What behooved man to be a conscientious objector to the lusts and materialistic desires which satisfied the flesh when he knew that by donning a mantle of humility and reading off the list of his sins, which were legion, that he would be absolved of his indiscretions and made new again?
What composed the list of sins? That which man decided separated him from his god. Were they sins? Or were they just actions, albeit infantile of a people not grown to adulthood? The line is a slim one. Man knows and knew always what he was capable of. We have a case of wanting the cake and eating it too. Can you see why this particular planet is unique in its ability to teach the striving soul of its responsibility?
Ideas manifest in the quickest possible way. You dream of a desire and within its context it materializes. With little obstruction. And with this manifestation, man soon realizes or not so soon that this does not satisfy what was a hunger. He learns that he requires more and more or less and less. Within that there is much gained. What man realized was that the initial satisfaction was not long standing, so he prods himself to work harder and harder to afford more and more. Not consciously does he know this. He keeps the carrot on the stick and keeps moving it himself.
In many ways man gives meaning and an objective to life which would not have meaning otherwise. The otherwise would demand of him an objective look at himself and a life which would need examination. Man steers clear of the inner path because he thinks it is fraught with dangers. The church has pointed this out in many ways. Stray thoughts do pepper the mental landscape and requires courage to examine them. Easier to say the devil did it and never have to analyze their concept of either the devil or their god.
The church continues to serve man until it finds it serves no one. When man takes upon himself the responsibility of his choices he will know he cannot blame anyone for his inabilities concerning his life. Then and only then will he gain the plaudits saying his is a job well done. Man has taken blame when things fail and in humility when things work out gives credit to a greater power than himself. Unfair. The good of one man in its highest sense will be the good for all men. How can something which benefits truly one man not benefit in its largest sense, all men?
