The Gospel of Jesus Interpreted Pessimistically

 I think the problem with interpreting the gospel of Jesus to mean we must convert people to be saved is that it makes a division between us and them; the saved and the unsaved, rather than seeing everyone on their own unique journey back to God.

For example, by emphasizing you are guilty of sin, and you should feel shame for you sin, so you need to believe how we believe for God to save you, you first make salvation conditional on a belief system. But the problem with that is beliefs and thoughts are constantly changing. Beliefs about things are like symbols of symbols and could vary from person to person. For example, the way you envision the Trinity could be much different than how someone else envisions the Trinity. You could both envision the Trinity very differently but to say that how you SEE the Trinity or BELIEVE in the Trinity qualifies you for heaven or not makes your belief in that which you have never seen contingent in how you believe in that thought of the Trinity. 
Another problem with it is trying to convince people that they are guilty and shameful outside of Christianity is cultivating feelings of fear as not being good enough which is definitely not the case.

This viewpoint sees people as NOT the children of God UNTIL they accept the gospel message that church is trying to get them to accept instead of seeing people as ALREADY good enough and always being the Sons of God. 

The difference is huge because one says you lack and you need this to be whole, and the other viewpoint says you are whole because of who you are already and nothing can take that away from you. Certain Christians say you are less because you are not converted yet and are endanger of eternal damnation, but then the other viewpoint says you are more than enough and that your very birthright is heaven. 

The problem with equating a specific thought to your either entrance into heaven or your eternal damnation to hell is that your thoughts on God, Jesus, and so forth could change throughout the years because that’s the nature of thoughts. As we grow, our thoughts grow and evolve too. And the chance that you have the same thoughts I do on the same concepts is probably a very low chance given the nature of thoughts. 

Also the view they have of the gospel where they need to convert people play into the idea that even though it says God’s love is unconditional, they are acting as if God’s love is conditional by believing people need to convert to be saved. Some might argue “Well God still loves those He throws in hell” and I would beg to differ. What Father loves His son so much that He throws His son into an eternal pit of misery for finite mistakes on earth? And if God throwing His son in the pit is conditional, and the very act is eternal damnation for finite mistakes rather than temporary punishment in order to grow, then that must mean God wants people to suffer. Why would there be a system put into place where people get one life and if they THINK the wrong way about God, they will go to hell forever. Does that resemble God’s love? 

See, if God’s love is truly unconditional, then there is no condition amongst us that will warrant some people to experience conditional love from God and others to experience unconditional love from God. And if you still have the audacity to say that God throws people into an eternal pit of damnation because He loves them, I would ask you how does that make any sense to you at all? 

Once someone is aware of their mistakes, their wrongdoings, how they need to change, and instead of getting another chance to make things right, they are denied that choice and instead are sent into an ETERNAL pit of damnation for FINITE mistakes, because God loves them??? See there is no growth, there is no improvement, there is no mercy, there is no evolution for that soul anymore. Now their sole purpose is to be tormented for infinity and to be honest, that doesn’t sound like my God, but it definitely sounds like the god painted up by Dante’s Inferno and later adopted into the Catholic church after Constantine’s acceptance of Christianity.

If you look into church history, the stark contrast between heaven and hell was not always there with both the Orthodox and Catholic branches of the Christian church, the east and west churches. Prior to secular influence from Constantine in the West, The Catholic and Orthodox church had a very much looser view of heaven and hell. They didn’t take it within themselves to explain exactly the path of that which grants someone salvation but they did give their recommendations, and they also didn’t take it within themselves to go into the depths of what Hell is like. 

But what they DID care to explain is very different than most modern day Fundamental Christianity. With the early church view of hell they didn’t see hell as a separation from God, but as a place where God was and that place wasn’t meant for people to be specifically burnt like holocaust victim for eternity, but a place where God’s love was so intense, like fire, God’s love “burned” the individuals in a non-negative sense. Rather than burning for no reason except for eternal torment, the burning served a purpose for that person to be purified. So then fire often denoted a purification process which is in alignment with the Jews view of a place of judgment, rather than the hedonistic view of fire from other religions that denoted eternal damnation. Many Jews believe that those who weren’t good people and had a lot of sins rack up went to a place of punishment and purification, but that it wasn’t meant to be eternal, but for a reason that benefitted that soul. Then in the Kabbalah, the mystical branch of Judaism, it states that once that purification is over and the person sees their sins as sins, they go to be with God. Many Jews believe that the real hell is our time on Earth and believe that a soul continues to go back to Earth until their sins are completely dealt with. So in this perception of afterlife, with God, you either go back or go up. Either way you learn powerful lessons and eventually will return to be with God. 

Also on top of that, many Orthodox Fathers, some even second from Apostle Paul, believed in apokatastasis which is the idea that God will eventually reconcile all to Himself and save everyone and everything. Also known as, God is victorious in the end and saves every soul, which lines up perfectly with the idea that God’s love is unconditional and He is full of love and mercy for all.  

Isn’t it ironic how some of the oldest and most profound church Fathers recognized a universal salvation and didn’t leave anyone out? So that must mean they weren’t focused on how you believed to get you into heaven, but more so your relationship with God and how that affected your life. It was not pointed at which thought you believe to be true to warrant salvation, but on your life lived as God as your truth. The focus leaves the idea of thoughts and symbols that already don’t do a good job at explaining things, to a beautiful, unique and personal relationship with the Creator of the Heavens.

Also, wouldn’t be quite contradictory that Jesus would tell the story of the the 99 safe sheep and 1 lost that He went to save and then that was actually a myth and God doesn’t actually save “all sheep?” That it’s actually even reversed and 99 sheep or a majority of people are “lost” (eternally tormented) and then only 1 or 2 get saved? Sounds just a tad bit fishy and shockingly many denominational branches within Christianity (such as Calvinism) believe exactly that, that a majority’s default is eternal hell and very few make it to heaven. And to make it even more cringeworthy, they don’t even believe you have a choice on if you’re saved or not, but that God chose that before you were either born. So you could just be walking around this globe and no matter how much you try, how hard you believe, it doesn’t matter because God didn’t “pick you” to be saved but rather to be eternally tormented, and you had absolutely no choice in the making of it. See how beliefs tend to get even more polarized in religion as the years go by? It’s almost as if the doctrine of the church raises the stakes even more so to one, make themselves feel better about being extremely devoted to their religion, and two, believe they are chosen and others are not to feel special. 

A true follower of God sees ALL men equal to their self. They don’t have a dualistic perspective that they are right and that person is wrong, but accept that everyone is on their own unique journey back to God our Source and Loving Creator. They don’t try to force a belief system onto them thinking that thoughts will be their straight ticket to heaven, but they accept them exactly how they are, and instead of trying to force them to change to be better according to what we think is moral, they simply love on them recognizing that true, unconditional love has the most transformative power in someone’s life, not a thought process conversion.  

Also the Bible never mentions a place called hell 
Also, tell me if it makes sense if the ego isn’t real. As in the ego is the belief in separation, division, and is part of the illusion of fear, guilt, shame, and all other emotions stemming from the false reality of the ego, then tell me if it makes sense that God expresses any aspect of the ego in His undefiled, pure, essence? If ego is part of our personal reality to learn lessons and unlearn false beliefs to grow into our good nature, and God never needed that growth but He sees and acknowledges that growth, then why would man succumb him to the same unreal illusionary forces that humans go through for growth when God does not need to grow at all? It simply baffles me that humans don’t blink an eye when they read passages in the Old Testament where it says things like “God is a jealous God” and “God was so angry that He killed them all” or “God repented of His works.” Do these words not point to a god who his displaying egoic mind patterns and attributes of what men suffer from being part of the illusion? How could God suffer from what man suffers when in God there is only oneness and no separation and egoic mind patterns are a result of the belief in separation? 
To say that “God is a jealous God” is to assume God BELIEVES that He is separate from His creation, and why would He be jealous unless He knew that we were all one?
To say that God “was angry with them for not listening and so He killed the whole nation” is to say God BELIEVES in a dualistic perspective that their actions aren’t worthy of another chance in order to learn and grow, but rather they are deserving of immediate death which also incited violent anger within the Creator. How could God be subjugated by the same dualistic and egoic mind patterns of man if God is ABOVE false illusions such as fear, separatism, anger, and so forth? Are these attributes not all part of the illusion?
If God does not change yesterday, today or forever, why are their multiple verses in the Old Testament which say “God repented of His ways” which denotes a change in His mind? Either one or the other is wrong, and my assumption is potentially we are talking about two different gods. 

In the Law of One by I Am Ra, they claim the God followed by the Jews named Yahweh was usurped by the Orions and utilized in order to further their own mass domination, enslavement and destruction throughout the world (and that this was a norm with other religions). They used the name to conquer other nations through deceiving groups into following them such as with the Jews, to kill other nations by the Jews.  The Ra group state that The Orions that supposedly pretended to be the Creator used reasons such as “this nation is unrighteous” as an excuse to commit genocide against them, and to erect their own places of blood sacrifice of animals to keep a secure connection between themselves and the Jews. Covenants so strong that the Jews would fear leaving it. And in order to keep the Jews convinced that the Orions were in fact “the true God”, they used righteousness as a weapon as a way to justify murder.” So then for the Jews, if it was truly the Creator of the Universe and they hear from one of their religious leaders that God says that nation is unrighteous and we deserve their land, then of course that genocide is justified in their belief system. This is once again a claim from the book the Law of One by I Am Ra.

I obviously don't know for sure if that were the case, but it brings up important questions. How do religious people know they are truly following who they believe to follow? How do they know they aren't being deceived? What tests can one use to double check if they are being deceived or not? How do these religious leaders know for sure it isn't just all in their head? Or that their  physical events have been spiritualized to mean something that isn't real? It's one thing to say something objectively happened, but it's a whole other claim to assert it is from the Creator of the Universe. For example: Maybe it was an objective fact that Moses saw a bush on fire. Maybe the subjective addition was God was in the bush talking to his creation, as he is in his creation, but "God talking as a bush" stems from Moses' subjective experience. That still begs the question, why wouldn't the Creator just talk to his creation directly? Out of all the things supposedly God could've used to convey the message, why use a burning bush? Was Moses hallucinating because he didn't have food or water or because he was fasting? Did Moses take a known hallucinogen because bushes obviously don't have mouths to speak? There are so many questions that I have for the religious and those who follow these religious beliefs.

One thing I do not like is how many  laws and ordinances of the old times are dripping with “blood commandments” and by blood commandments, I mean for a lot of them, if they disobeyed the commandments, they would be killed. No second chance, no forgiveness of mistakes, simply death. Death was written so deeply into many punishments for disobeying the commandments, it’s almost as if death became a norm in those times. It’s almost as if people in those times were so desensitized by death in their own laws, that they didn’t feel much when they killed those outside of their own people and this could be the same for other nations with other religions. Nation after nation taking lives who are just trying to survive over what? Land? 

I will be the first to admit I don't know for sure, but it’s also hard for me to envision the Creator of the Universe stuck in the illusions of egoism so much so, that death, fear, anger, jealousy, rage, are worn by an undefiled, pure, merciful Creator and seem to be the most predominant reactive answer when things don’t go to plan. It’s just very hard for me to believe that is the case, because the God I know, is not like that.