Transferring the argument from risk assessments of global heating (from my last blog) to the risks of continued inter-religious and inter-racial conflicts:

What if we assume that God speaks all languages but that we, being the imperfect beings that we are, have each interpreted His/Her/the All’s essence imperfectly?

If true, what are the logical outcomes of listening to all of humanity as having a piece of the truth?

If false, what are the logical outcomes of listening to all of humanity as having a piece of the truth?

As I see it, each of us is given some big chips to play on the gaming table of life:
The seconds and minutes and hours we have at the table
The body that is the vehicle for our being on earth
The heart to discern with our inner gnowing what is right for us, personally
The mind to analyze the options and choices
The responsibility for playing our chips in concert with other players, for the highest good of all

My personal belief is that each of us is a crystal through which is refracted the light of the Infinite Source (not ‘God’ because that is the masculinized/ yang sub-aspect of the IS, counterbalanced by ‘God-ess’/ yin) - into the world of our perceptions and interpretations.
 
I believe that each of us, being a part of the IS, is co-creating an evolving IS-ness.

From my perspective, IS has given all that is in the universe free choices, allowing us to learn our lessons as we place our chips on the gaming table of life.

My experience is that IS constantly reveals itself to us. The imperfections in the crystalline structure of our beingness leads each of us to refract the light of IS differently.

I see no logical way to discern the highest good of all from the perspective of my own crystalline refractions. I learn most from comparing and contrasting mine with those of others who perceive the IS differently.

I have a hard time understanding how the words of Jesus or anyone else who is held in similar authority can be taken as the last authority, because those same words have been interpreted in significantly different ways by how many different branches of Christianity? And the words of the Old Testament have been interpreted by how many more and varied branches of religions?

And what we are discussing has an immediate, life and death importance in our world today.

The approach at the gaming table of life of maximizing my/our (“in” group) personal gains over the gains of others – which is what religions based on faith promote – is leading us to continued global conflicts that make it difficult or perhaps even impossible to work together to avert the consequences of humanity’s collective PTSD.

If we cannot come together to pool all of our chips for the common good of our planet (not just of humanity), and very soon, we will be toast. Humanity is suiciding. In great part this is due to the habits of playing our chips in self-centered and often selfish ways.

So I come back to the question of risks and consequences:
What are the risks and consequences of continuing on the old paths of “I’m right and you’re wrong and I’m willing to fight you to prove my view is better” ?

What are the risks and consequences of assuming we all have a piece of the truth, and that by coming together we will have a window into IS-ness that will surpass the windows at Chartres Cathedral; the mosaics of the Dome of the Rock; and all other separatists monuments to limited perceptions of the IS?

Recommended reading:
Surowiecki, James. The Wisdom of Crowds, New York: Anchor/Random House 2005. (book review)

Recommended website:
United Religions Initiative
Peacebuilding Programs
San Francisco, CA 94129-0242 USA

Blessings and prayers

Dan Benor - WHEE MD