Looking at the Christian God from two different ideas, same conclusion

Aside from the traditional biblical view of the Christian God, I’ve noticed a second perspective as to what God is. This idea is more new age and seems to be less talked about despite it always seems to be there in the background. This idea is that God is the totality of the cosmos, being the creation as opposed to the creator. And therefore we are all apart of God. Christ, however, is considered a higher spiritual state of enlightenment. Satan, however, is the state of selfishness, materialism, and apathy. An interesting twist that can allow people to keep their faith without getting caught up in religious dogma. However at the end, I still come to the conclusion that this god does not care about us and we should still rebel.

The human body is made up of many different parts and systems, ranging from the skeleton to the tiniest of blood cell. Over time, cells are born and cells die. We constantly discard parts of our body, albeit tiny insignificant parts, such as hair, skin flakes, or nails. We don’t care about this individual pieces. We discard them when they no longer serve the purpose of the whole with no thought to their preservation. This is how this cosmic intelligence sees us, tiny bits of itself who’s interest that serve the whole and can be discarded.

1 Like

This is the concept of immanence as opposed to transcendence, and there’s actually quite a bit of theological literature on the topic. Wiki has a decent summary of the different religious perspectives on this here.


I think that cosmic god idea is mixed in with reincarnation. Our souls come back many times to evolve. Each life is insignificant in the sense that there’s always more and we can never truly die.

1 Like

That’s vaguely touching upon some more modern Rosecrucian philosophy and general Hermetics. You have to consider that the bibles of JCI are Kabbalistic texts, and full of true allegory mixed in with the misdirection, misinterpretation, and perjuries. So looked at from that perspective, if you separate the wheat from the chaff it does seem plausible that the Christ is a level of enightenment and connection to Source.

Satan, though, I think is mixed in from non-relevant historical sources. The Lucifer is the rebellious angel, not Satan. Other modern traditions maintain that the Lucifer and the Christ are different aspects of the same thing. This makes a degree of sense as well, especially when you consider the Christ, though correspondant to the Sun, is repeatedly messing with water, showing a kind of symbolic polarity.

And why not? If we really are just a thoughtform or dream or fleeting notion of an indifferent creative source, then that is our priviledge.

My personal interpretation of it is that Source is not sentient in any human appreciation of the idea, as of yet. On the other hand, if it was sentient then I have to believe it has no more attachment to any given facet of any plane then you or I would have towards a passing thought or fancy or daydream. I don’t think it is personal, so I don’t take it personally.

1 Like