Deo Genesis (The Second Book of Enubin) Chapter 2

Reads: 188  | Likes: 0  | Shelves: 0  | Comments: 0

More Details
Status: In Progress  |  Genre: Religion and Spirituality  |  House: Booksie Classic

The Dialogue Continues

Chapter 1 (v.1) - The New Era

Submitted: September 02, 2016

Reads: 174

A A A | A A A

Submitted: September 02, 2016

A A A

A A A

Deo-Genesis (The Second Book of Enubin) -

Chapter 2:

 

The New Era:

 

In this light, it may be advantageous to look at some of Yeshua’s words, mainly in order that certain misconceptions and misinterpretations can be properly dealt with. In one place He spoke thus: “… I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No-one comes to the Father but through me …” Another translation, perhaps more accurate, could be: “… I am Way, Truth and Life …” This is possible because it is doubtful that the definitive, ‘the’, was part of the original Yiddish or Hebrew language. One scholar interpreted these words as: “… I am Truth; and the Way to Life …”

 

Regardless of the interpretation, it is the meaning of this statement that has been misrepresented. Firstly there is a misconception that coming ‘to the Father’ and entering the Kingdom of God - or Heaven - are synonymous. This is not the case. In other places, Yeshua used the phrase 'Kingdom of God' specifically, while in others, the word 'Heaven' or 'the Kingdom of Heaven', was used with the same intention. But the phrase 'Coming to the Father' was different. Perhaps - to understand the true meaning of these words - it would be useful to examine just who ‘The Father’ was: It has been said that Yeshua was the Son of Yahweh, the God of the Israelites.

 

Up until that time, Israel had taken for granted that - because of their familial bond with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - their affiliation with Yahweh was sealed. Much of the latter part of the Old Testament would refute this. Their blatant disregard for The Law, and misuse of His Grace, as well as a whole list of wickedness, had all but disqualified the nation of Israel from what they regarded as their ‘birth-right’. This was further confirmed by Yeshua’s words. In essence - in a negative way - what He was telling them was: “No longer will your citizenship of Israel; or your claim to the blessings of Abraham avail you. The only prerequisite to gaining access to Yahweh, your God and my Father, is through your allegiance to me.”

 

In a positive context, Yeshua was opening the door to any - even the Gentiles - to Yahweh’s throne. Put positively, His words could have been: “… All who would come to the Father, may do so through me …”

 

How then does this apply to all believers, regardless of their Deities? The application is the same: In the past religion and nation went hand in hand. To worship the Greek Gods, one had to be Greek. The same applied to the Celtic Deities, as well as those of Egypt, the Native Americans … But the Advent of Yeshua put an end to that. Just as the nation of Israel could no longer claim exclusivity over their worship of Yahweh, so the world’s religions could cross over national boundaries.

 

This was necessary at this juncture of human history because - largely due to the expansion of the Roman Empire - the old nations had ceased to exist. Indeed, it is recorded that Jerusalem itself had become home to many nationalities, even Greeks.

 

 

Israel of old was also bound to a sacrificial system in which access to their God was only obtainable with the spilling of blood, and that only by the High Priest. Yeshua’s words also put an end to both and heralded what has become known as the ‘Priesthood of All Believers’. This simply means that one needs not go via a priest to have fellowship with one’s Divine Source, but can approach the Throne with confidence in one’s time of need.

 

Far from being a restrictive measure, as has been touted by the Christian Church in order to maintain their self-appointed exclusive access to their God’s blessings - not to mention Heaven itself - these words speak of freedom from the old ways, and a better fellowship with the Divine. But this is not without condition: It is indicative that the same Yeshua later said that those who would claim to be His followers would abide in His teachings.

 

This principle still applies, if not even more so, to the New Covenant. If it is so that access to the Divine is no longer guaranteed by means of national identity, then it is even more important that one applies oneself to one’s adherence to those precepts laid out in the Scriptures. Understand at this point that the ‘Scriptures’ spoken of are not only those of the Christian faith, because ‘… all Scripture is God-breathed, and thus useful for teaching and correction …’ Thus - if a person claims to follow the Wiccan faith - it follows that the validity of his or her faith would be proven by the application to its precepts. The same applies to all faiths. As has been mentioned previously, it is not the validity of your God that should be questioned but the validity of your faith. And how shall it be otherwise? If one claims allegiance to a certain ruler, and refuses to follow his laws, then is that person not proven to be a hypocrite and a fool?

 

Many have claimed to be followers of Christ and His Father. But alas, almost as many have committed such acts of violence and corruption as to be an embarrassment to both the true believer and his or her Deity. Would the One who taught His own to ‘… do unto others as you would they do unto you …’ have looked upon the atrocities committed during the Burning Times with anything short of utter disdain? Certainly He would not have looked kindly upon the settler who sought to subvert and cheat the First Nations out of the land that was theirs from birth, or the colonist who would oppress the Aborigine and reduce him to a vagrant in his own land, that had belonged to him since the beginning of Dream-time. He would not withhold judgement upon those who hunted the Sidhe, as he did the San like mere vermin … The list is endless!

 

Would it be any different with the other Deities? May it never be! Surely the God and Goddess would not take lightly the blatant disregard for the Divine Rede that they have inspired. Nor would Allah allow such open rebellion against the Koran to go unchecked if committed by those who claim allegiance to the Muslim faith.

 

If the priesthood of all believers was implemented in Yeshua’s day, it is even more applicable now in this era of transition. As the religious boundaries give way, it is even more incumbent on the individual to pay heed to his or her personal dealings with the Source. No more shall mere affiliation to a certain Church, Temple, Shrine or Circle avail much if one should neglect one’s individual spiritual path and development. As Yeshua’s words meant that access to Yahweh would - from that moment on - be by means of allegiance to Him alone, so would any claimed affiliation to whatever faith, be tested and validated by one’s faithful application of the principles and precepts thereof.

Indeed this has always been the case. The standard has not changed, but many have forgotten this and forsaken their first love, and it took the Son of Yahweh to come and remind us of this undying fact, and to enforce it.

 

Does this mean that the old ways were somehow wrong or ill-conceived? By no means! To truly understand this, one should lay aside the concept of ‘Right and Wrong’, and replace it with the idea of necessity. The old ways were applicable to that era because - although not the ideal - they accommodated humanity at that specific stage of development. The establishment of the nation of Israel itself was a fulfilment of the promise given to Abraham by his God. No doubt the Iroquois Nation, or those of the Celts, Greeks, or Egyptians … were seen as divinely appointed and inspired, as indeed they were. But this was a temporary arrangement. While it was necessary for that era, it would not last.

 

Civilisation is not a static process. It must progress from hunter-gatherer to tribal, from tribal to national … If the spiritual state of a nation or people is going to accurately be reflected in that society, then it too must be subject to change. In every system - even in the human body - there is the potential for growth as well as the potential for corruption. In any living being there comes a time when the very systems, that were originally designed to aid it and assure its growth begin to malfunction, and eventually that organism dies.

 

It can thus be said that humanity can be compared to a gigantic organism. Religious, Political, and Social systems are put in place - many of which begin well, and some endure for longer than others - that are designed to improve humankind’s quality of living. Sooner or later, however, the very system that sustained the civilisation ‘organism’ for a season becomes corrupt. Those who at first were put in place to assure that the system works for the benefit of all, begin to abuse that same system to enrich themselves, and more importantly, to ensure that they remain in the position of power and authority that they hold - even when they are no longer fit to continue to effectively carry out that office’s responsibilities.

 

This means, that while the initial structure was sound, it becomes unstable and unable to sustain the civilisation that it supposedly serves. And that is when change is necessary, if not essential. The civilisation must either accept the need for change, or fall because it has failed to do so. And many such great civilisations have collapsed because of their refusal to embrace change effectively: Ancient Greece, Egypt, Rome … right up to the fall of Communism. Let no-one be deceived, the modern systems known as Capitalism and as Democracy are not immune to the danger of corruption.

 

One of the signs that a system has deviated from the path of constructive progress is when that system believes that it is - not only superior to the others - but that it is the only one that should be given the label of legitimacy. Progress is not a question of right and wrong, but of taking that which is good and beneficial from that which is already in place, and re-examining that which is not, in order to make them so. One does not destroy the foundations to build a house, but rather one builds from the foundation upwards. The only religious or socio-political system that can be considered ‘wrong’ is that which no longer serves the common good.

 

 

Perhaps this is a good time to dwell upon this age-old concept of ‘Good’ versus ‘Evil’; ‘Right’ versus ‘Wrong’ … Men have said that the ultimate good can only be reached when evil is eliminated. But if the darkness of night did not exist - or was not allowed to exist - how then would we measure the brightness of day? How does one compare the goodness of ‘Good’ if there is no contrary? Verily these must be given equal recognition.

 

And what of those Deities that had fallen? Were they to have a people unto themselves? Verily so, for ever was the One aware of the necessity that equilibrium must at all times be maintained and upheld. Thus came the time that has been recorded in the Judeo-Christian texts as the Fall of Man. It is worth noticing that, even in this account, the instigators of this downfall – namely Adam and Eve – were banished from the place where they were created. Was this punishment, or an act of judgement, as has been touted by the Christian Faith? On the face of it, it might appear so. But - if one looks at it more deeply, or perhaps from a different perspective - was it not because, though Light and Dark, Good and Evil, must have the right to exist, these contraries cannot dwell in the same space?

 

If the presence of Evil was abhorrent to the Creator, how could He have called Creation ‘Good’, and even ‘Very Good’, while in the very Garden Paradise there existed the one known as the Serpent? Did the One not know that His nemesis was present in Eden? If this were even possible, this calls to question the so-called Omniscience of the Divine. Indeed if a single event since the time of Creation were allowed to occur without the Creative Centre’s prior knowledge - and therefore consent - then the Creator could be considered less Divine than those who follow Him claim. But to speak in such a manner is folly, but even more so to accommodate such folly.

 

From every level of Creation came the Fallen. Those Deities that rejected the Divine Light gathered allies from the Angelic Hosts, and they in turn drew followers from the Finite Creation. Many have made this statement: ‘Surely it would be better if those who yet follow the Divine Light were to eradicate those that have rejected it!’ The error of these words is to believe that the Light has no need of Darkness, or Good of Evil. If a good king were to overthrow a tyrant only to rule in his place without opposition, would he not become as despotic as the tyrant he overthrew?

 

The problem is not the existence of evil, but its determination to dominate. Even within the breast of man such turmoil exists. The Spirit seeks to exist in unison with the Ego and the Flesh. And yet these two would have pre-eminence over each other, as well as the Spirit. Thus they must be kept under submission lest they usurp their position to the ruin of the whole being.

 

All too often they that believe that theirs is the cause of ‘Justice’ and ‘Righteousness’ would overthrow all that refuse to follow their righteous example. Alas, ere long, these same ‘Righteous’ and ‘Noble’ warriors - along with their leaders - find themselves committing the same evils for which their erstwhile enemies fell, if not even worse sins than they! Hence the Crusades were deemed right in order to ‘convert the heathen’, but those that embarked thereon were every bit as wicked and brutal as the worst of their would-be converts. And the early Christian Church gave birth to the evil of a corrupt Papacy, which gave rise to the Burning Times, and eventually the Inquisition!

 

Truly it is not dominance that will bring lasting peace, but balance and harmony. And how shall it be otherwise? As the One is neither Good nor Evil, Light nor Darkness, Male nor Female … so too should Creation reflect the balance inherent in the Hands that fashioned it.

 

It has been said that Christians ‘invented’ Hell. In a word, this may well be true, but not in its concept. In every culture and in every faith there is a place, regardless of its name, where those that commit evil are sent to pay for their wickedness. Just as it has been unjustly levelled at the followers of Christ that they ‘invented’ evil. Is not the universality of the moral code reason enough to accept that anything that contradicts this canon should be considered evil?

 

If this is true - for arguments’ sake - how shall the Pagan condemn the vile acts committed during the Burning Times? Surely they would call these deeds, as well as their perpetrators, ‘Evil’? This concept is not an invention as much as it is the realisation that morality exists, and so does its contrary. It could be said that there are differences in the moral code, and that to judge another’s standards as evil - merely because they do not coincide with one’s own - is wrong. But this does not mean that the concepts of ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ are erroneous.

 

Another aspect of development that is often mistaken as being good or evil is that of change. Change is not a moral or ethical issue, but rather one of necessity. The question is the direction that the change takes. For instance the so-called ‘Reign of Terror’ that followed the French Revolution indicates that perhaps the changes that were brought about were not entirely for the better. It is a known fact that more people were killed during this time than during the whole Revolution itself.

 

While violent change is never desirable, under certain circumstances it is sometimes needful, not as much because of the forceful nature of the revolutionary, but because of the stubbornness of his predecessor. If a tyrant will not listen to reason and constructive argument, but continues in his tyranny and acts of oppression, then how shall those suffering under him ever be free from his reign save through violent change? But if the people’s so-called ‘Liberators’ merely perpetuate the tyranny, albeit in another form, then is this any better than what went before?

 

Human history is filled with proof of this sad truth: Under the rule of Robespierre and his fellow revolutionaries, France suffered more deaths than during the whole of the Revolution these same leaders had inspired. The rebel, Idi Amin, soon became Amin the tyrant … Seldom has there been a rebellion that was not succeeded by even greater corruption.

 

In the dynamics of culture, society, and civilisation, change is inevitable. A wise man once said that humanity has never developed a social, economic, or political system that endured throughout the generations and did not result - in the end - in further enslavement. Even the modern socio-political models of so-called ‘Democracy’, ‘Freedom of Expression’, and ‘Capitalism’ are fast exposing the flaws inherent in their make-up. At the base of all this is the failure those that succeed a true visionary to accurately follow his or her vision. As one writer once said of the Christian faith of his day: ‘… every hundred years, the Real Jesus and the Jesus of the Christians meet and discuss matters. And at the end of every meeting, the Real Jesus says to the Christian Jesus: “My brother, once again, we do not see eye-to-eye.” …’

 

Does this mean that humanity will never – or can never – reach a state in which their civilisation is free from the ravages of decay? Absolutely not! There is but one basis upon which - if it becomes the foundation upon which a socio-political system is built - will ensure that such a society will stand regardless of the opposition it may have to face. And that basis is love: Love for Source, love for Self, and love for one another. This is why Yeshua told His listeners that the most important of all Yahweh’s commands was that one should ‘… love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and strength, and love your neighbour as yourself …’

 

Again it is worth noting the audience to whom these words were addressed. When he spoke them, he was surrounded by a group that were, by and large, Israelites. Thus, when he told them to 'Love the Lord your God …', he referred specifically to Yahweh, the God of Israel. But the fact remains: For an individual to grow spiritually, it is important to maintain a vital and positive connection to that person's Source, regardless of the title he or she uses when communicating with that being.

 

Is this merely a lofty ideal, never to be truly attained? Perhaps not perfectly, but surely it is a worthy and wholesome goal for which one should strive. It certainly appears to be a universal ideal. Another creed states the same sentiment, only in a different way: ‘… For the Highest Good. For the good of all, and harming none …’

 

 

 

 

 

A Matter of the Heart:

 

One misconception that Christianity, although not exclusively, has perpetuated is that the human heart is wicked - even evil. If the fruit is rotten to the core, is it not beyond hope of redemption? The heart of man is not the so-called ‘seat of the emotions’, but the very centre of his being. And if that is indeed corrupt, then humanity is corrupt indeed and beyond salvation. After all, it is said that ‘… as a man thinks in his heart, so is he …’ Yeshua repeated many times that a ‘… bad tree cannot but produce bad fruit …’ If the human heart is as has been said, then mankind’s every action, every thought, and every intention would be evil without hope of remedy!

 

To further examine the misconception that the heart is the ‘seat of the emotions’, elsewhere it is written that the Divine Word is living and active, and searches the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Emotions are not governed by thought, and more often than not take on a life of their own without intention. As has been said: ‘As a man thinks in his heart, so is he …’ Can a man’s identity be so fickle as to change every time he experiences a different emotion? If this were the case, then the human psyche would be unstable at best. The man could be morose and melancholic in the morning, and by that afternoon be happy and joyful. The heart of man is the core of man. One who is filled with spiritual fervour can endure hardship, cruelty, and even torture without that fervent heart being jeopardised. A man whose heart is secure is stable in all his ways. One who is filled with courage can face the worst of fears because his heart is strong.

 

David did not defeat Goliath save that he had first overthrown his opponent in his heart. Israel’s hearts were as wax before this giant Philistine, and it took a mere shepherd boy to show them their cowardice. Pagans who fell at the hands of the Inquisitors did so because they would rather remain true to their hearts than give in to these brutes that thrived on torture and tyranny. Martyrs and saints throughout the ages, and regardless of their faith have stared death in the face because of the valour in their hearts. Mahatma Gandhi faced death on a number of occasions, both at the hands of the British, and even by starving himself until his own people learned to live together as they should. Those in the French Resistance would rather face death by torture than revealing their secrets to their Nazi interrogators … In the face of such overwhelming evidence, how can it still be said that the human heart is evil and untrustworthy?

 

And besides, the very same people who speak this way claim that humanity was created in the ‘Image and Likeness of God’. If it were true that the human heart is indeed wicked, this would mean that their God failed in securing His image within them … Again this is folly.

 

What then is the problem? Why the unbalanced state? Because humanity has lost the connection with his centre. The Creator did not fail, but the creature! The details of this - as has been said previously - is the central theme of the so-called ‘Fall of Man’. Eve - symbolic and representative of her race - is deceived into believing, that to attain the highest level of God-likeness, she must reach beyond herself and ‘Eat the Fruit of Knowledge’. If it is so that Eve and Adam were created in the image and likeness of the One who created them, then both were intrinsically God-like. No external influence was needed to make them more so. A child resembles his or her parents because he or she is family, not because of any make-up or mask the child wears.

 

And a man will continue to reach in vain if he reaches beyond himself for fulfilment, love, validation and acceptance. This is why it is written that the Divine Word is in us, in our hearts and even on our tongues, because it is when the tongue speaks in agreement with what the heart knows to be true that a man’s words carry true power. Regardless of the religion, if it entails reaching out to attain to some external goal, it will only lead to frustration. It is when one reaches to that which of old was known as the God-self that one will be truly satisfied.

 

But to attain to this level of awareness, humanity has to go through the stages of spiritual evolution as he did the physical. The next stage of this journey is one in which the personal, or individual relationship with his or her Source takes precedence over the group to which he or she belongs. Even in the ancient times it was stated thus, that all would know their God, from the greatest to the least, personally. One scripture says that the Divine knocks at the door, and he who allows Him to enter will enjoy fellowship with the Source on the most intimate of levels.

 

Until we meet again - Namaste. 


© Copyright 2017 Tristan Biggs. All rights reserved.

Chapters

Add Your Comments:

More Religion and Spirituality Books