Before to ask if God does exist or not, what do each of us call God exactly? Define it first …
- A Spirit
- The essence of everything means more than a spirit but still a spirit by essence all together
- A concept ...
What is it exactly or totally ?
So a lot a religion do define God as a spirit (almost like someone = a person) that looks sooooooooooo tiny regarding to the subject of God (first of ; for what it means as a word when we use it even not religiously, second of ; for what it means as a spirit) but why not? If for instance God is all, it is at least a bit of this and a bit of that and also this (so then it wouldn't be totally false but just a limited understanding of the matter if it is everything for instance).
When I began to study the bible by myself it was actually to find all arguments I could to prove to my family that it was pure junk even insanity to be clear on my purpose!
But still to do this job and do it well, I still needed to be objective (otherwise better not even try – an argument have to stand against any others to be relevant).
So to began the first thing I had to do was to forget about every/any postulate(s) to re-think everything from the start in only keeping one question in mind … Does this have anything to do with reality in not forgetting that reality have something to do with sincerity because in this matter we are talking about spirituality (so it is not only about what we can see, it mainly about what we can feel).
Also it feels comfortable (and right to me) to stay vague on specific matters because when you have to deal with symbolisms from an other age, things can be way less closer to our primal understanding that it looks like at first. For instance what means exactly to be saved as a spirit? When we at least have the idea, that a spirit do not have a body and by then can be spread in multiple peaces but still be one through all.
In this story we have GOD (which is in all Eph 4:6) and two opposites it’s son (Christ) and its opponent (Satan).
- You can see both as spirits by essence so which can be spread in multiple peaces but still be one through all (so that would be about reality – what it can be)
- But you can also see it in an other way and all together by God being all like its potential has 2 polarities, one which unite/build to everything and the other which divide/destroy/ everything.
So God in being everything divided/shared in everything – for each of us individually the potential to destroy takes advantages if we do not pay attention/have faith to/in the potential to build.
What this book is saying (to me), is that this potential is and will always be stronger by nature just because, by nature God’s essence (so by then its spirit) which is shared in everything did not share to destroy (it would be destroying irself) but to build – so the potential to destroy in God is weaker (as weak as anyone of us don’t feel to die as long as we know that we have to potential to live)
That's what is symbolised as his son (the product of the fertility of it's spirit) is actually its consciousness (that's what this verse is saying John 1:1-5 ... without the consciousness there is nothing you are aware of ... when in coma for instance you are alive still you can't use your potential) the consciousness is the begining of everything (so this is again a spiritual and not material matter).
Each of us individually as a spirit (a human with a spirit with free will) have the choice to be connected = stay united to the all for the good of all or disconnected = divided our self to the all for the good of our own self … but what are we without all NOTHING … That’s the beginning ofdeath = the VANITY of the cult of the EGO.
Whatever subject you take for instance : paradise versus hell ... you can see it in so many ways and come up with a so many different interpretations regarding to the context and what it does or not symbolised according to you.
So when you think : what looks like real? if it is or becomes incoherent you still have to find out what looks sincere.
Ok now just to go futher on the subject since we all have been embarrassaded in a way or an other by the JW religion : this is something I understood from the bible which for instance actually really talks against the JW teaching … what does tell me the OT regarding to the NT ?
Well the OT is a demonstration of the failure of the method which consist to rule by laws in protecting (even overprotecting) or punishing (even over punishing) it doesn’t lead anywhere good but (if any) a specific purpose and for this specific purpose you have to forget about even the main principle (fundamental law) of God (love others as yourself) just to lead to a particular purpose (this method doesn't lead to justice and wisdom in every matter) the consciousness of a spirit do not grow up this way (obeying is NOT suscribing to and fearing something is NOT loving the thing in question)
Then the NT = Christ’s Gospel is a call to not act without proper judgement … and it says that we can do it from one and only principle “love others as yourself” (forget about you if necessary to be objective about others and also about yourself) look for justice which have everything to do with balance.
And when I've got this, there was no doubt at all (just from that) that the JW doctrine (obey to laws no matter what) and practices (doing too much, in many matters which doesn’t lead to pure love = the AGAPE one = CHARITY which have a lot to do with understanding/compassion/respect for what they are and even for what they are not) - doesn’t lead anywhere good.
Regarding the all thing : Christianism is not a religion (a doctrine is at first globally based on a phylosophy).
Oh my this is too long ... enough !
