While at university, I was in an intense quest. There was a huge difference between the Islamic doctrine we were taught, and the one that I could embrace with all my heart and soul, so much that, with a strong need of embracing the notion of God with awe, instead of fear, I began to say, “If all these people around are Muslims, then I’m not, and I don’t want to be.”
When I was just three years old, I asked Mom a question, and got angry because I couldn’t get a satisfying explanation:
“Mom, God created us, right?”
“Right.”
“We need Him for everything, don’t we?”
Yes, we do.”
“But He doesn’t need us, does He?”
“No, He doesn’t.”
Now, I thought to myself in a childish way: It doesn’t matter God or human; why to create something that You don’t need, but that needs you, and perhaps that will prove to be a pain in the ass?
“Well, Mom, then why did God create us?”
Of course, there was no answer, because she didn’t know it, either.
Just at three year of age, questioning the source of creation, I got the best explanation from the spiritual New Age books I read many years later, because the most reasonable explanation about God I’ve ever found was (if I’m not wrong, it was in Ramtha series): “God was just ‘being’ once. He couldn’t experience Himself. Therefore, He turned Himself into infinite particles and all the galaxies, systems, stars, planets, the creatures on them and thus, mankind, came to existence in physical realm. But since these particles had to lower their spiritual frequencies, they forgot their real identity eventually, and entered a spiritual cycle that repeats over and over again, to raise their frequencies and go back to the Source in the end.” And in Koran it’s said: “We came from Allah, and we will go back to Allah.”
In his bestselling book Science of Love, John Baines talks about God in quite a similar manner, but putting it in a clearer, and more impressive wording: “Love is not an emotion. The notions we describe as emotions, like anger, hatred, desire, are just different expressions of love. And love itself is God!”
God might have been described just so beautifully. We shouldn’t be surprised to see millions of people have the problem of love in a world where structured religions warped the faith and the way that’s claimed to lead to God. Today, especially no thanks to the terror groups around Arabic lands, we are given a profile of God, who grabs every opportunity to punish men, who is ready to throw us in Hell if we don’t follow the true way of belief (this true way is described differently in every religion, and even in subsystems, of course, so how many God we have, or how many true way exists is unknown), who loves or hates us depending on our good deeds or sins (this is called conditional love, and it’s completely opposite to the notion of All Loving and All Forgiving God), who is more like a “police chief” that rises above everything else (and this is creating a separation between men and God, which equals to the polytheism in my eye). At the other hand, while the Muslims are for hell in the eye of Christian priests and Jewish rabbis, and they’re for hell in the Muslim eye in return, it seems that Heaven must be quite empty, because more than half of the world population is of one of these religions.
Arthur C. Clark asks a very interesting question to the reader in his successful novel series, Rama. When the astronaut heroine of the novel finds herself in another planet after an unplanned space voyage in Rama, and encounters some other aliens from another galaxy, one of the questions in her mind is, “What do you think and believe about God?”
And on our planet, most ecclesiastics – they’re the ones who are responsible of the chaos about notion of faith mostly – say, “There’s no life on other planets, but Earth; even if the aliens exist, they’re not mentioned in Koran, or Bible, or Torah.” Then I have a conclusion about God: He is a very bad designer, who misspent His sources and materials, because it’s absolutely nonsense to create infinite number of galaxies and star systems, whereas we can’t even go beyond ours. As a footnote, these people don’t consider the planets as living creatures that have their own spiritual bodies, either. (I’m in awe regarding their IQ.)
Seven or eight years ago, I was the guest talker on a debate show on TV, and we were talking about 2012 and the return of the planet Nibiru. I was really mad at some bigots who were brought under the title of “scientist.” Not only these guys couldn’t grasp a possibility of the idea of mankind on this planet could have been created through some genetic intervention by some highly sophisticated aliens, but also they claimed other intelligent life forms couldn’t exist on other planets. Alright, this is not a proven fact, but not unproven either. And according to their claims, planet Earth aka Lady Gaia was a nonliving sphere!
My first question to these guys was, “Now, let’s put metaphysics and spiritualism aside, and approach the topic only scientifically. You claim to be scientists, so please answer these questions of mine: 1. Is this planet organic, or inorganic?” Of course, the answer was “inorganic.”
“2. Is a rock organic, or inorganic?” Again, “inorganic.”
“3. Is the soil organic, or inorganic?” “Inorganic,” was their answer once again (and an interesting conclusion).
“4. Are the plants organic, or inorganic?” This time, they had no answer, because they realized where I was going.
“5. Please explain us how organic plants grow up out of inorganic soil. If you can’t, please stop babbling.”
Right after that, at my second verbal maneuver, I emphasized this: “Science always accepts what it can perceive and prove through its five senses, and what’s beyond it is irrelevant. Science couldn’t see infrared rays until a specific point in history, and when the technology was developed enough, we began to see them. Then the scientists said, ‘Oh, yes, infrared is real.’ When Jules Verne wrote 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, scientists called him crazy. And now, when our technology made it possible, submarines became a reality of our lives. The moral here, dear experts, we are artists, and our job is about imagination, philosophy and questions that you see as crazy. However, we make way through these crazy or silly questions of ours, and you scientists try to follow us through your slow coming understanding. Therefore, while some artists and thinkers who talked about things centuries before you were named as ‘lunatics,’ you begin to realize how far we are ahead of you, but you resist to admit that.”
And third maneuver: (This was real fun.) “Mankind succeeded flying in the beginning of 20th century, and at the second half of the same century, Moon was conquered. Today, approximately a hundred years after the first flight, we send spacecrafts to Mars and some other planets. We discovered the technology of genetics, and cloned a sheep; I also believe humans were cloned on this planet, too. Moreover, our recorded history is only 6,000 years. Now, imagine a civilization. Let’s say they have a recorded history of 20,000 years; how far do you think they can go? Just imagine, as mankind, where we will be 20,000 years later from now. Now the question is: Is it so difficult for such a civilization to go to another planet and start a new life there through genetic means? Is it impossible to believe in such a scenario might have happened on our planet?”
Silence. Grunts, but no clear response.
“Yes, it’s difficult,” I continued. “Impossible. Your human ego makes it hard to accept such a possibility. You believe so keenly that we’re the most sophisticated creature all around the universe that you can’t accept a possibility that the source of our existence might be the technology an extraterrestrial civilization.”
Whatever, small talk goes far too long, but I think you got what I’m trying to convey here. These guys base this topic on Masonic conspiracies, or world dominion plans of some (see, even they have imagination!), and they might be right or not, but regardless to whatever comes in the dawn of this new millennium, I don’t think it will care of religion or even race differences among mankind. Many people are scared to death of “end of the world” prophecies, but they don’t seem to understand this is just scary in physical dimension, and that even if we all go dead, we will come back to a much better world.
We have to understand this perfectly: We are not physical beings that have also spiritual bodies; we are spiritual beings that experience the worldly life in physical bodies. Therefore, we can never cease to exist!
If a change like Thea Alexander talks about in his famous classical work AD 2150, micro man is free to try and destroy itself.
