From Christianity to … spirituality?

For those of you who have been following this spiritual transformation of mine, it’s about time I told you the specifics of what I’ve now come to believe.

I suppose it started off with me reading about “chakras,” energy vortices that are beyond the physical realm and aligned with the body – seven of them, from the crown of the head to the base of the spine, each with its own function. Whether this is your soul, part of your soul, or whatever, I’m not sure, but it’s seen in terms of energy, rather than something far out that can never be understood.

This gelled with me, because of an experience that I had when I was twenty-four, when I was praying with my girlfriend. She prayed that God would touch me, and I experienced an intense vibration in the stomach area for several minutes (skip the dietary, jokes, please; I’ve heard them all). Very pleasant, very exciting, and very real. Also documented by other Christians. Touched by the Holy Spirit? I thought so initially, but the conservative Evangelical in me soon dismissed the whole thing as purely physiological. Over a decade later, now reading about chakras, I couldn’t help but wonder, did I experience energetic activity in my solar plexus chakra?

The trouble is, rationality is king with me. I needed to bring this knowledge down to a level where I could hang it on something rational. And so, I decided to experiment with something I remembered from my teenage years: I saw a friend perform telekinesis (more correctly called psychokinesis), the moving of an object with the mind. So I tried to do it myself, and as you’ve seen lately, I got some excellent results. Whilst this doesn’t prove anything specifically about chakras, it does bring the view that we are beings of energy a little closer to credibility than the laughability that many people attach to it.

There are other reasons for believing in chakras, too. For instance, the heart chakra, in the centre of the chest, is our emotional centre. We don’t feel emotions with our brains. Our souls experience them in the chest area. Anyone who has felt deep emotional distress knows the crushing pain in this location. It’s where we get the expression “broken heart.” It’s certainly not the organ that pumps blood around the body that is suffering. It is the energy centre that occupies that physical space. The throat chakra is said to be responsible for matters of the will. Think about some of the contexts in which our throat becomes uncomfortable, or dry, and makes us gulp.

Okay, so I can connect some of the dots to things we know from this physical world. It isn’t proof; it’s just a way of looking at things. Here, briefly, are more ways in which we can look at reality. I’m going to use some terms that I will be hard pressed to define accurately, because I don’t fully understand the concepts myself, and it’s going to sound like I’ve jumped off the deep end.

Everything that exists is consciousness. All matter is consciousness. Yes, that means that every blade of grass, every rock, every piece of matter in the universe, is in some sense conscious. Everything is in a state of vibration, and matter is consciousness condensed to a slow vibration. What we see as the physical realm is only a fraction of what really exists.

Our own consciousness is tuned into this “frequency” – one of a great many frequencies. Our birth in this life was not our beginning. We didn’t have a beginning because we are each an aspect of the infinite consiousness that is everything – God, if you like. It is very likely that our consciousness experienced other incarnations before the one we are currently in. Being born is not the beginning of your life. It is like your consciousness chose to incarnate, to condense itself into this body, thus shutting off a great deal of its “higher self” including all the memories of every life it has lived. After the experiences of this life, your consciousness with leave the body and reconnect with its higher self and you will move on to whatever’s next, whether that is another incarnate life or something different.

On a more down to earth level, we perceive the physical world in a certain way, and we think that’s the way it really is; we say that a blade of grass is green or the sky is blue, or whatever. What we should realise is that that’s not strictly true. Other creatures are perceiving this world in different ways. The cat or the lizard see the world differently, with their slit-like pupils. Flies, with their compound eyes, have a vastly different means of processing visual reality that our eyes do. Bats are near blind and rely on a form of radar. Birds migrate by sensing something we don’t. Dogs experience a world of smells that we know little about. My point is the world isn’t actually as humans see it. The physical world is just an energetic frequency, and the body is just a computer that interpets the physical world in a certain way to the brain. The old philosopher, I think it was Rene Descarte, who said, “I think, therefore I am,” was onto something: the view that you can’t really prove that anything exists beyond your own consciousness, because everything that you gather through your five senses is transformed into impulses in the brain that your consciousness interfaces with and experiences. Your brain is between you and the world.

There’s a book called The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot that I’m dying to read on this theme. If you have the time, here’s a good video that explains the idea behind it. Be warned, it’s 20 minutes long:

So, try to stretch your mind to conceive that we may all experiencing a collective “illusion.” Something like Neo in The Matrix. When you rap your knuckles on the desk, it feels solid, but it’s actually the illusion of solidity created in your consciousness by the “computer” that holds all this together. Not even your body or brain is real. It’s all part of the program. A screwball idea? Remember, the illusion of solidity is something that even we mere humans have made great strides in. We invented the hologram. Look at the incredibly detailed worlds that you can interact with in today’s videogames, a three dimensional illusion behind a flat TV screen. I’m suggesting that physical reality may be the same thing on a vastly more spectacular scale. And behind it all is not Neo sitting asleep in a vat of smelly gunk in a human battery farm. Behind it is infinite consciousness, of which you are a tiny and unique aspect undergoing an experience in your evolution. You, and everyone else, and everything else that has conscious reality are one.

Oh boy. I really did jump off the deep end, didn’t I? Do I really believe this stuff? I’m afraid I do. But who’s to say it isn’t just the biggest load of poppycock? Nobody. I can’t prove this stuff. These are hard admissions for me because I’ve started believing certain things without knowing quite why I believe them. That’s a strange thing for me to say because anyone who knows me knows I prize rationality above anything. While these beliefs aren’t irrational, they are unprovable. The only thing I can attach these beliefs to is “intuition.” And that’s another weird thing for me to say, because I’ve never thought much about intuition until now, and I’ve certainly never lived by it.

I think it works like this. Once you let go of the mind prison that says “this world is all there is” and the other mind prison of religious belief systems that restrict you to a strict set of beliefs – once you open your mind to all possibility – then you connect to your higher self and to knowledge you had before you were even born. People live lives shut off from this knowledge because they are disconnected, at a mental level, from their higher selves.

Of course, it’s very convenient for me to believe something and then to say I don’t have to prove it because it’s intuition. And I know someone will accuse me of just believing what I want to believe. But for me, the strength of conviction I feel goes beyond wishful thinking. That’s why I’ve been reluctant to really let fly and talk about this stuff. I also want to be careful to say that this isn’t something I want to impose on you. It’s just another way of looking at life. Take it or leave it, it’s up to you.

For me, I can’t understand rationally why I believe so strongly in this stuff – so stongly that it has transformed my life. Did I merely read some good material by David Icke and decide to take the rest on faith? Come on, I’m smarter than that. Something else is going on here, and I don’t know what to call it except intuition. For me, the proof of the pudding has been in the eating. And next time I’ll talk about some of the ways this new understanding has benefitted my life.

39 thoughts on “From Christianity to … spirituality?

  1. OK. That was an interesting read, i’ve not watched the video yet, but i will do.
    I’d like to start out by saying this idea isn’t as irrational as you might think, or fear.

    Quantum physics, or at least my very limited understanding of QP, is already heading in this direction, without the actual “consciousness” aspect, but certainly that the world is something completely different to what we perceive with our eyes, ears, nose, and touch, etc.

    As i understand it, there’s only so many types of particles, and it’s the make up of these particles that decide if something is solid, liquid or gas, the density, and the mixture. So although a wooden table might feel solid to us, it’s still only a collection of particles squeezed into a particular part of space-time, and the particles aren’t actually glued together, so this is why, when we hammer a nail into the wood, it pushes the particles aside, the density of the particle arrangement in a nail is stronger than that of wood.

    Water is a great example of what you’re talking about, water does contain a certain solidity, when you touch it, you can feel it, but you can push through it, it offers very little resistance. So it’s no leap really to say that nothing is truly solid, it just takes a more dense item t push through things like wood, metal, glass, etc.

    Chakras are more alien to me, and to my untrained and uneducated mind (in this area), it sounds like an egg or chicken argument.
    Is there a physiological reason for the pain in the chest, during grief? Did someone come up with the idea for chakras, based on feelings they were having but didn’t understand, or were chakras always around and physiological explanations like “pain in the chest” come about as an explanation for things we couldn’t explain?

    I’ve experienced liberal amounts of grief, from when i broke up with my Ex, and i suffered the feeling you explain, a lot, i’ve also gone through bouts of panic attacks and stress, which feel very similar.
    My understanding is that panic attacks are caused by a fear reaction, fight or flight, where the spleen sends out extra red blood cells, filled with oxygen, in order to give you an advantage in dealing with the danger. As i understand it, the pain is just because your heart suddenly has to work harder, faster, pumping out more blood, causing a strain on the whole area.

    I really don’t know though, be interesting to get a proper medial point of view on it, see what medical science says about it. And just how much evidence there is for their stance.

    I really don’t see anything in global consciousness though, it’s just too far out of my scope, i can’t make sense of it or justify it on any level. I could, i guess, be tempted to buy bigger and better consciousness on our own parts, ie. us being made up of energy and being able to do wonderful things outside of the restraints of our current reality, but the idea that it’s linked to everyone and everything else, is just wayyyyyy too much.

  2. Darryl,

    Your post made me smile. Welcome to the warm waters of meta-physics. Relax. The water is fine. Keep nudging mind, body, spirit, and emotions. Your exploration is a joy to witness.

    Melanie Mulhall

  3. Stacey,

    Wow. You have have a knack for getting to the heart of the matter, don’t you? 🙂

    Tough question, and the last thing I want to do is give you a quick answer that is spiritual sounding but superficial.

    It’s hard to state one thing as “what I live for.” All life is experience and growth through experience. And the experiences I want to pursue are to grow in my understanding, to connect more with knowledge that comes through intuition, to grow in personal goodness, to grow in love towards others, to use my talents for the benefit of others, to maintain a personal harmony within myself, and to enjoy pleasures that life has to offer. There are both selfish and selfless aspects to all that.

    Everything that matters in life does boil down to one thing: We must love each other.

    I’d be interested in your answer, too, and how we might differ.

  4. Chris


    Remember the time I wrote to you from Canada and told you about Krishnamurti, and you freaked out and thought I was brainwashed or something? Well, it turns out that Krishnamurti and some guy called David Bohm were very good friends. Bohm was a quantum physicist who postulated the holonomic theory of the brain. This is closely related to the stuff in Talbot’s book you mentioned, which I think I also remember reading in Canada at that time. Anyway, the point is that I’m familiar with some of the stuff you mentioned in your post.

    I guess I’m not surprised that you’re going down this road. I’ve seen a major change brewing in your life for a long time now, and I suppose this is the only alternative between a major religion, like Christianity, and atheism/agnosticism.

    When I was into Krishnamurti, it made a lot of sense in the same intuitive manner that you say all this other stuff makes sense to you. So, I understand that too. Eventually, I ditched Krishnamurti because I realized that his rhetoric and spiritual “insights” did not have ready answers for the realities I was seeing in my life at the time, which was during my last year in university as an undergraduate. Later, I also realized that none of his teachings were really practical at all.

    One of the main problems with maintaining a pantheistic, “singular universal conscience” belief system is that you have to deny certain objective, inescapable facts and realities in order for it all to remain sensible. Primarily, the conception of God as some sort of impersonal being, of which we are all various manifestations thereof, contradicts the inescapable objective fact that God has interacted with human beings in history. For better or worse (and whether you personally like it or not), this God has told us the way things are, and the way he wants things to be. He has told us that he is personally interested in each of us, and we’re all unique individuals, each with infinite eternal value.

    One of the other main problems with the system of beliefs you’ve now accepted are the incoherencies and contradictions that you’re going to have to keep explaining away. This is already sorely obvious when, in “I am the one and only”, you said “…the enemy of individuality is anything which denies you [the freedom to think for yourself]”, but now, in this post, you say “You, and everyone else, and everything else that has conscious reality are one.” How do reconcile this? On the one hand, you’re saying individuality is supremely important, but then you expound a belief system which says that individuality doesn’t even exist. How is this better than what you claim about the Protestant Christian belief system impinging upon peoples’ ability to think for themselves? At least in that system, whatever you and I think of it, people are still people, distinctly different and unique, not just part of some amorphous, hopeless, homogeneous universal consciousness.

    On a philosophical level, how is this even any better than atheism or agnosticism? While you may feel more alive now than ever, your belief system basically says that you might not even really exist, that the reality around you might not even be real, that when you die your life simply won’t cease to exist, but will endlessly, pointlessly, continuously go unfulfilled. How much more hopeless, pointless, and depressing can you get?

    In the final analysis, what I think you’ll find is that your belief system just does not adequately explain the world around you, the evils and the injustice, the kindness and the goodness, the miracle and the mundane, the sickness and the death. It will not help you choose the right action over the wrong action because it offers no moral system, it will not give you hope when all hope seems lost because it is in itself hopeless. And, on the day of eternity, it will not help you pass to eternal life because it offers you an appealing fiction instead of what’s real and objectively true.

    I find it difficult to understand how you rationalize all of this mumbo-jumbo as being reflective of reality when you admit that it’s based purely on your own subjective whims, your “intuition”, as you put it. You’ve opted to place your belief in pure theory which has little evidence to back it up, and reject the literal truck loads of solid, verifiable, objective evidence that supports the claims of Christianity over any other belief system man has conjured up for himself. Perhaps one day it will become apparent that, in ditching Christianity, you’ve rejected the objective rationality, the historic provability, the intellectual and philosophical coherency and consistency of that belief system, and all too easily replaced it with the false idol of your own subjective imagination that lets you believe whatever you want to believe, that gives you unlimited writ to explain away the stark, unavoidable objective truths of the world around you, that has reduced your life to a philosophical nothing.

    But then, I’m sure I’m just misunderstanding you.

  5. Finally remembered to watch the video, and ended up going to youtube for it, so i could full-screen, then read some of the comments.
    I found the video quite interesting, very interesting in fact, but i have a few problems with it, one was actually raised by someone elses comment on the video:
    If science and the people who are doing the scientific research, are nothing more than perceptions through our senses, why are they being used to justify the claims of the video? Why would it matter if Quantum Physics backs up the idea, or makes it “fact”, like the video proudly claims, if QP and the people doing that research are nothing more than perceptions too?
    Which then leads me on another avenue of thought, if everything is merely a perception, what makes our thoughts any different? Surely our thoughts are only perceptions too, and anything we think means nothing, including the thought that we are all one consciousness, or that reality isn’t what we perceive.

    Like Chris, i imagine this belief would lead to a hopelessness greater than any agnosticism/atheism based belief. At least as an agnostic, although i don’t actually believe in a God, or heaven or after-life, or anything really, once i’m dead, i have the moment. I have films i can watch, i can watch children get excited at Christmas, i can see friends do well for themselves and feel proud of them or happy for them, i can even achieve happiness myself, in small doses, even though i’m a miserable, twisted, bitter entity most of the time. 😛
    It’s not quite an eternal hope, or a promise of something better, but it’s moments of joy, cheer and happiness, which can happen every single day of my life, even if only in small doses for small amounts of time. But if none of that exists, and every moment in my life that i enjoyed was merely a perception, as well as all the bad stuff, then truly, what is the point?

    I can see the lure of following this line of thought short term, it’s very interesting and exciting, a whole new world to explore, with fantastic potential, etc, but sooner or later it would lead me to a very negative and ultimately pointless existence.

    Nothing i see, touch, taste, feel, hear, know, is real, it’s all just a dream, conjured up by the soul, which happens to not even be my soul, but a collective soul, which makes me and anything i am or perceive meaningless too.

    Short term, it’s very promising though, and to be honest, i’ve gone down a somewhat more simple avenue myself at times, without the complicated science and intelligence to back it up.
    I sometimes like to think that everything around me is merely here because i’m dreaming it, that everything is of my thinking, good or bad, and that i could make it all better, if i just tried harder to think things the way i want them. I guess it does come from the “I think therefore i am”, quote, but i’d never really looked into it or gave it any credence, as to be honest, it’s too easy, it’s a bit like a child curling up into a ball, or covering their eyes, and assuming that no-one can see them now.

    The problem though, is no matter how much you think it, things just don’t change and you’re faced with the reality of life. As much as you spend your time moving things with your mind, or thinking of things in totally different ways, kids are still dying, people are still crying, there’s pain and suffering all around.
    Which in itself rises an issue, because everything is merely perception, should you now stop caring about things like children dying of starvation, or being abused? Should you stop caring about cancer patients or people with bad hearts? Should you stop caring about friends and family? They aren’t real, afterall.
    I could go on for hours, literally, cos it opens so many avenues of thought.

  6. Help me out here… if we’re all one, how come there’s wars and disagreements? Or are the wars just a figment of our infinite holographic imagination? Why would the Eternal do that to us? Just wondering.
    Keep on thinking, this is quite entertaining!

  7. Stacey


    Well, obviously, there was another version of the Matrix, but the one consciousness rejected it.


    I live to become like Christ, in so doing to give up my self in service of others. I live in the hope that when that likeness is complete, I will behold the face of God, in all His perfect goodness and glory, and in knowing Him I will love and worship Him. Then I will be truly myself as I was meant to be and truly known for the first time as I have always desired. There is no room for selfishness.

  8. Stacey


    I do like to get to the point. No time for waffle. So I have another question…

    Why must we love one another? And what is your definition of “good”?

  9. Hi, Grace.

    I’m glad you showed up. You’re not as mean to me as some of the folks here. 😉

    “Help me out here… if we’re all one, how come there’s wars and disagreements? Or are the wars just a figment of our infinite holographic imagination? Why would the Eternal do that to us? Just wondering.

    I would suggest wars and disagreements happen precisely because people don’t see that oneness. They live under delusions that imprison the mind and promote division.

    And to all concerned, let’s not misunderstand this idea of a holographic physical reality. It doesn’t mean that the universe isn’t real, only that our physical perception of it isn’t real. The energy behind the “hologram” is perfectly real. The energy/consciousness of every human being and every thing is real; it’s just not actually physical. Physicality is the illusion. That’s the philosophy, anyway.

  10. What makes the energy real? If we imagine it to be real, isn’t that just a perception in itself? Isn’t that just as susceptible as our perceptions of matter?

    You’re going from seeing and understanding that the stuff we do see isn’t real, to claiming that some other stuff, which we can’t see, is real. Out of all the belief systems that claim something unseen is real, and are supposedly wrong, your new concept, based on pretty much the same idea, is real.

    If we’re all one consciousness, how did it get separated? How come we perceive things individually and are capable of this ‘individual thought’ which you want so much for everyone? And why do you want it, if we are all indeed all one consciousness?

  11. Chris,

    “But then, I’m sure I’m just misunderstanding you.”

    You are, actually. Greatly. To tackle one small issue from the many you mention, you say that my belief in individuality contradicts my belief in oneness. That’s just an oversimplification. Our consciousness is individual at this level, but we are all connected to a higher consciousness that encompasses all of the consiousness on this physical frequency and all the other frequencies. Think of it as a zillion individual droplets of water making up the ocean, maybe. Perhaps that’s not accurate, but it’s the best I can do.

    The thing to remember, Chris, is that I haven’t actually embraced a belief system, as such. I’m just working my way forward, trying something out here. The idea of turning this into some kind of dogma is not appealing to me. At any moment, any aspect of this stuff is changeable in my mind, or indeed all of it.

    But what I’m hearing from you is that I should return to the fold, that I should re-embrace the an entire belief system that will once again close me off from investigating anything outside of the confines of its dogma.

    To give you an example of why this bothers me: Recently I decided to investigate (the admitedly unimportant skill of) psychokinesis. I discovered it to be real. The thing that allowed me to discover it was real was open-mindedness. If I had closed myself into Christianity, I would not have discovered it, because Christianity promotes a sense of forbiddenness around psychic matters. The question is (psychic matters aside), what else, of greater importance, might I discover, if I remain outside the religious “mind prison”?

    I’m just a guy trying out a different way of looking at life. Maybe it’ll work, maybe it won’t. Right now, things are looking positive. I certainly don’t see it as a crime to be open to different ideas in the way that I am. I hope to get closer to the truth looking at life in this less restricted way.

  12. Chris


    I hope to get closer to the truth looking at life in this less restricted way.

    There was once a man who stared into the face of Truth itself, and asked, “What is truth?”.

    How do you define that term?

  13. Markus

    Hi Darryl

    I haven’t read all of all the posts you’ve made, But from what we’ve talked about face to face and what i’ve read i have one observation to make, which might just be me picking things up wrong but here goes.

    At the beginning of your journey towards open mindedness, one of the reasons you gave against the narow scientific view was the fact that “if it can’t be proven, it can’t exist” or something to that effect. The worrying thing is, is that this seems to be your argument against Christianity, and more specifically the existance of Heaven and Hell. The fact that no Christian can prove their existance doesn’t mean they don’t exist, and more importantly, just because you choose to believe they don’t exist, also doesn’t mean that they aren’t real.

    From the quick scans of your posts and replies, it seems to me that you have done a 180 degree turn from your original starting point. At the 90 degree point you were making sense and things seemed logical, butyou have gone further around the spectrum to a place were it seems that you are clinging to your owns views in the same way that you are criticising organised religion of doing.

    Does that make sense? i does in my head, but maybe it doesn’t compute well 🙂

  14. Well, without resorting to a dictionary, I would say truth is the objective reality of what’s really real.

    I don’t know what you’re trying to infer by quoting the scene with Pilate.

  15. Chris

    I would say truth is the objective reality of what’s really real.

    So then what have you to say to the undeniable fact that God has interacted with mankind in history, and told us how it is?

  16. Stacey,

    “Why must we love one another?”

    What I’m saying is, when asked what I’m living for, that’s it in a nutshell: loving others.

    And what is your definition of “good”?

    Positive behaviour. That which helps, rathen than that which harms.

  17. Hi, Markus.

    Thanks for dropping in. Do so more often. 🙂

    “The fact that no Christian can prove their existance doesn’t mean they don’t exist, and more importantly, just because you choose to believe they don’t exist, also doesn’t mean that they aren’t real.”

    I absolutely agree with what you’re saying. I can’t deny the existence of hell just because there’s no proof. But at the same time, I have to have some means of assessing the reality of it. The point is to start out open-minded about things, then to assess, then to decide on whether it’s true. The opposite of this is skepticism, where something is declared false at the beginning and not allowed to be seen as true without absolute proof.

    I don’t believe in hell because I have currently found reason to disbelieve in Christianity.

  18. Stacey


    I think you’ve brushed me off too quickly. This is a serious problem I see with your line of thought, and I’m not sure how you can resolve it. In gradeschool, we had vocabulary exercizes and the teacher had us stand up (in front of the class, how evil) and give a definition of a word. Inevitably, I ended up using the word to define the word. I think you’ve done that here, essentially.

    What is positive, good, help, etc.? You’ve drifted into an undefined territory and no longer have the luxury of appealing to an objective and righteous God to define truth and good for you. So how is it done?

    On a different note: This stuff makes a lot of sense and can hold a lot of water on the physical level. Obviously it appeals to me, as a physicist, to think of the world this way. There’s Einstein’s photoelectric effect and E=mc^2 to give us free transfer between energy and matter. Then there’s wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics to blur the line even further, and finally entanglement brings us around to think that not only is the universe made up of one kind of something in different forms, but it’s all connected. Physically.

    The leap to assuming that the one kind of something is consciousness is a large one, with a deep pitfall under it. If you follow the conclusions it brings you to, you will end up nowhere. It reminds me of a Spongebob episode Isabel was watching recently when he was rebuilding his house. As cartoons can, he was standing on a board with no walls under it, nailing a board to it, walking onto that board, picking up the last one he was just on and repeating.

    Do you see what I’m saying? You’re roundabout. What’s the foundation, the starting point? How have you gotten where you are? By assuming there’s a physical reality, looking at the properties of that and realizing there’s not a physical reality? Be like Descartes. When you question everything, you have to begin with the fundamentals. Please don’t ignore the question, because I really want to know what your start is, and find out what your assumptions are.

  19. Hi, Stacey.

    “What is positive, good, help, etc.? You’ve drifted into an undefined territory and no longer have the luxury of appealing to an objective and righteous God to define truth and good for you. So how is it done?”

    I saw you baiting me into this position from a mile away. 🙂

    The thing is, we are not morally vacuuous when we are without reference to a religion that defines right and wrong. We are not robots that are capable of any atrocity until our moral centres are “programmed” by our religion. Even the Bible affirms that the law is written on the heart.

    At a basic level, behaviours can be classified as positive and negative. This is essentially what good and evil is.

  20. Stacey


    I was never trying to be coy.

    I know we’re not morally vacuous, which has much deeper implications than you may realize. Again, I can point to Problem of Pain as dealing with the implications of the existence of the numinous and of morality. But you are still without an objective morality. Do you then subscribe to a relative morality? That’s awfully messy.

    I can’t accept your definition of good and evil. Positive and negative behaviors are relative to each individual. We can reference the point of view of a paedophile again if you wish. Who is to decide what is positive and negative on a whole and for everyone? Do you draw those lines yourself?

  21. Stacey,

    “But you are still without an objective reality. Do you then subscribe to a relative morality?”

    I don’t think I’m without an objective morality. I believe in objective truth, that truth extends to morality like it extends to all things.

    The precise ins and outs of that morality will be the subject of debate and disagreement, just as people have difficulty in agreeing on truth in every other sphere of life, but it stands to reason that all aspects of human behaviour will either be classified as right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable, good or evil. Absolutely, objectively.

    I know I am posed with difficult questions like what gives me the right to say my view is more right than somebody elses? I can only return to the central idea that human beings do have moral centres that are essentially the same. We have an innate knowledge of right and wrong, and I feel we cannot spend our lives pursuing wrongdoing without grave consequences for us psychologically and possibly physically, too. I don’t have to appeal to a higher authority for my morality, because it is something that is built in.

  22. I’m perfectly comfortable agreeing that physicality is an illusion. The spiritual plane is much more real than anything we’ve actually encountered in this life. But the physical plane is not insignificant. It’s what we’ve been given as an interface, which is why physical actions can have spiritual consequences, in just about any system of belief. Including this new thing of yours, whatever it is, which led me to the observation that you seem to be behaving more like a real Christian than ever before.
    Would I be right in guessing this is why you are sticking by your morals?

  23. Stacey


    You’re accusing Chris of constantly misreading you, but your example that you gave was him asking you about objective truth based on some quote of yours. I was the one who asked you that question, and it wasn’t based on any particular quote, but as a whole of what you were saying. I honestly don’t see how you can have the views you do and maintain an objective truth and morality. I was honestly trying to figure out what you were saying, what you believe, and what a belief system like that looks like on deeper levels.

    I feel as if I haven’t been seen as an individual, nor Chris, but you’ve grouped us together in some incoherent mismash. Darryl, you’re guilty of your own accusations and have misunderstood us. It seems really sad to me that you’ve misunderstood your own religion from the get-go. You and I never actually shared the same faith. And I don’t say that to cast you off. It’s a different Christianity you describe.

  24. Stacey,

    “I honestly don’t see how you can have the views you do and maintain an objective truth and morality.”

    I understand that it’s hard to see me as someone who believes in objective truth when I’ve taken such a leap with what I believe. Well, I don’t maintain that my views are the objective truth with any great certainty. Only that I’m investigating a way of looking at things that might lead to the discovery of some objective truth – like the little psychokinesis experiment led to the discovery of mind over matter. (Incidentally, before you repeat what has been said before about the flaws in the experiment, it’s worth noting that I’ve now taken this to the level of being able to move the wheel with no hands from five feet away.)

    Remember, at the moment, the beliefs I’ve taken on are just a way of looking at life. I’m not holding onto them like religious dogma.

    “You and I never actually shared the same faith … It’s a different Christianity you describe.”

    That first bit’s pretty harsh. Are you saying I was never a Christian in the first place? It was the same faith. I’m only describing it differently now because it appears different from the outside looking in.

    I understand that you feel strong emotions here, because I’m essentially trampling on things that are precious to Christians. Maybe I should have said what I believe without reference to why I no longer believe Christianity, but it would have been an incomplete picture.

    I’m sorry you feel I’ve treated you and Chris badly during this. Maybe I have; I don’t know. I feel I’ve tried my best to disagree amicably where I disagreed, and to state my reasons without any personal attacks.

    My greatest fear in all of this is that I won’t be allowed to be my own person, and that if I continue to disagree with the view of life others feel I should have, friendships will crash and burn.

  25. Stacey


    Maybe he will answer, and I hope he does too, because I am learning things about my own faith from this. But there is a certain difficulty you must understand that we face. We still are Christians. While we do believe in questioning new ideas, we still believe in Christianity. From that perspective, can you see our point of view? We’re watching a friend we care about damn himself, literally. Do you expect that we’ll always take that gracefully? We don’t want to alienate you either, Darryl, but sometimes I do want to cry. And sometimes, because we feel that a lot is riding on your viewpoints, we get very frustrated to the point of lashing out. Maybe I should use the word “I” here more than “we”, I haven’t consulted Chris on this.

    I have tried to restrict myself to just asking questions rather than arguing, and so just trying to understand your ideas better. I think I’m getting some grasp on them, and I don’t think they’re wholly insane as you might think I do. There is, after all, an entire sub-continent that ascribes to these beliefs as well. But I think there are serious problems you may be sweeping under the rug just as much as you ever did with problems in Christianity.

    So let’s investigate these problems, both in Christianity and in the pantheistic holographic universe. Shall we?

    I don’t mean to be harsh, I said that. But even last summer while we were talking, it seemed like you had an entirely different basis for your faith, with different emphasis and expression, than I do.

  26. I don’t think it’s a bad thing at all, to see that we all had different faiths and different beliefs, even inside the same core beliefs, ie. that Jesus was God, died on the cross and rose again, etc.

    I’m certainly in agreement with stacey over the fact that my own Christian life felt absolutely like the one you’re describing Darryl, and i say that as an Agnostic who no longer believes in a God, afterlife or anything similar.
    I believed in UFOs when i was Christian, i read books by people like Erich Von Daniken, which i speak about in this post.
    I had other beliefs and mindsets that were against the norm, and never felt compelled to throw them away. There were others that i did feel compelled to get rid of, because i felt they were wrong, i took in the information in front of me and made decisions. Some i hadn’t even discussed with other people.

    You state that you don’t see your new beliefs as carrying any dogma, but i disagree.

    1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
    2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
    3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
    4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

    At the very least, this belief of yours is a settled or established opinion, belief or principle, because it’s quite widespread, and it’s certainly preached by David Icke, and his followers. Who are trying to spread the word, through his free videos, and his website, constantly reminding people to spread the word.
    I’d say it also covers prescribed doctrine too, as by it’s being right, Darryl, you’ve already painted a pretty negative picture of Christianity and organized religion as a whole, although you do offer that there are positive aspects, you still see it as a negative thing. You see it as closed-minded, imprisoning, etc.

    I don’t necessarily see it as dangerous myself, it’s just another belief, another way to get through the days and nights, to smile through the hard times, etc. And i’ve nothing against that. My only real problem with the whole thing is the hypocrisy of it all. Accusing one belief of one tihng, while doing exactly the same thing yourself, or following something which does the exact same thing, but with a different message.

    It could well be that every one of us is misunderstanding you, but i’m tempted to think you misunderstand yourself, and that you don’t actually see the contradiction in some of what you’re saying. Much like a Christian who believes one thing from the bible, and ignores the scriptures which go in the face of it.

    It’s a very interesting discussion though, i’ll give you that. I’m intrigued and it’s made me think, not only about the topic at hand, but many, many things surrounding it. 😀

  27. Stacey,

    I think Chris, you and I have allowed these discussions to descend to the realm where we end up simply poking holes in the opposing viewpoint, which isn’t really productive.

    From your point of view that you don’t want to see me damn myself to hell, we need to concentrate on the overarching things that led me down this road and keep me there.

    I’ve never thought of Christianty in terms of having grasped absolute truth without doubt. Instead I have viewed it as the most likely candidate for the truth. I always knew there were problems with it, which gave me a sort of “get out clause” that I could use if I wanted to. Though it wasn’t premeditated in the way that sounds.

    At various points in my life, I drifted into athiesm, because Christianity’s “get out clause” was always there, i.e. I could always choose to disbelieve in it on the grounds of the problems inherent in it. This all stopped when I became solidly convinced that athiesm was wrong, ushering in a period of seven years consistent Christian faith – which takes us up to now.

    The big eye-opener was learning that there was an alternative to Christianity that didn’t involve athiesm. Initially I was scared of this alternative. Unfortunately, many of the things David Icke said about Christianity in his book brought into sharp focus the problems I knew about. And his views on openness to possibility impressed me.

    I inched my way forward, gradually embracing some of the spiritual ideas he suggested, and to my surprise and delight I found that my life was transforming before my eyes.

    The biggest part of this transformation was my moral ability. This is an aspect that I haven’t yet discussed as a main blogpost, but it’s really where these discussions need to go. It’s hard to talk about because I’m not sure yet how much I want to reveal publicity about some of the moral struggles I endured as a Christian. All I’ll say at the moment is that some of it’s pretty dark, and I’ve endured a lot of guilt and sorrow as a Christian, with my inability to effectively better myself.

    I found a new way of looking at self-esteem, and a new way of looking at good and evil, in terms of balance and imbalance, positive and negative energies and their effects on us and the world around us. This, together with the view that we are all one, has had a profound effect on my behaviour. I’ll go into more detail in the specifics when I work up the courage to speak at length on this.

    In short, my Christian faith was not working effectively, in terms of me being able to experience “victory over sin.” It never really has. And I just can’t ignore the good that has come into my life, the good that I feel capable of, as a result of embracing this different way of looking at life. I can’t explain why these different ideas have had such a hold on me that they have transformed my morality, which is why I’ve opened up to the idea of intuitive truth. Something you “just know” at a deep level. Because if these were just some flimsy ideas that might or might not be true, I can’t understand how they have affected me so deeply.

    This is the single strongest motivator in holding me to this new way of looking at life.

    It’s ironic that usually, in converting a person to Christianity, you have to ask him to repent of his sins. In my case, you have to convince me to return to a belief system that, by all appearances to me, is likely to change me for the worse. That’s a tough sell.

    I hope to put together a longer and more detailed post about this side of things.

  28. Paul,

    “You state that you don’t see your new beliefs as carrying any dogma, but I disagree.”

    The crux of the matter is that these beliefs did not arrive as a system that had to be accepted in its entirety, nor do the individuals aspects of these beliefs depend on each other in that way. It’s not like religion, where are you given a set of doctines at the outset and told that’s the way it is, regardless of what you think. I am free at any point to change my mind on any aspect of the things I’ve come to belief.

  29. Stacey


    I think it would benefit us all if you were to set up a post that accepted questions and problems (practical, philosophical, etc.) posed by everyone, in short and simple forms on each of these ideas – Christianity and the pantheistic holonomic view. Then maybe we can all discuss the ideas without emotion (hopefully) and grow in our understanding. Of course, I would be growing in an understanding of the nature of God, and you would be growing in your understanding of the nature of… the universe? But none of us could ignore the problems or assume that just because there are problems that something is untrue…

  30. Grace,

    “The spiritual plane is much more real than anything we’ve actually encountered in this life. But the physical plane is not insignificant. It’s what we have been given as an interface, which is why physical actions can have spiritual consequences.”

    I totally agree.

    “… you seem to be behaving more like a real Christian than ever before.”

    Thanks for saying that. I need a little encouragement on this battlefield. 🙂 Putting aside the very strong vocal defense I’ve been asserting, behind this I’m overjoyed about being finally able to put some very bad behaviours behind me once and for all. Maybe I shouldn’t count my chickens till they’ve hatched, but I feel it’s been long enough to express some confidence that this is for real. Time will tell.

    “Would I be right in guessing this is why you are sticking by your morals?”

    Because of the new beliefs? Yes. I went into the anatomy of it briefly in my comment to Stacey above. I hope to write a proper post on it soon.

  31. Darryl: It’s not like religion, where are you given a set of doctines at the outset and told that’s the way it is, regardless of what you think. I am free at any point to change my mind on any aspect of the things I’ve come to belief.

    I still don’t understand how you didn’t have this same freedom from within Christianity. There are many people around the world who believe certain aspects of the bible but not others, aspects of Jesus, and not others, etc.

    As mentioned above, i believed in aliens, as a Christian, even though there’s no mention of aliens, per say, in the bible.
    And at the end of the day, we both showed, that we were free to turn our backs completely on Christianity, when it no longer seemed like the real answer. So the freedom was certainly there for the taking, the answer is, did you choose not to take it?

    While on this subject, what do you think of David Icke’s other preachings? Lizards, ritualistic sexual abuse of children, by the worlds leaders, etc? Do you think he’s right? Do you think these beliefs of his, fly in the face of his one consciousness idea, and your example in an earlier comment about being able to forgive people, because they are part of you?
    For a man who believes in one consciousness and the power of love (Icke), he sure does spend a lot of time hating on the worlds leaders, his critics and religion.

  32. I think the David Icke questions are important, Darryl, especially considering it was his book and his understanding which led you to such breakthroughs in your life/mind/soul.
    I personally can’t see the man as open minded, in any possible way, and i’m interested to see how you do, in spite of some of the things he claims and says.

    As for the friend, if someone can stop being your “friend”, just because you believe something different to them, were they really a friend in the first place?
    I personally think it shows an insecurity on their part, an inability to face the fact that there’s other opinions out there, in case their own opinion is wrong and is shown up in light of new evidence.

  33. I withdrew the announcement about my friend rejecting me because I didn’t feel right somehow about discussing it in a public arena, but part of me says I should talk about it. I feel like I’ve been punched in the gut.

    We’ll certainly talk about David Icke other views, but another time, especially after I’ve had opportunity to take a proper look at what the whole reptilian thing is all about.

  34. I think you were right for discussing your friend, and i can totally understand your feeling like you’ve been punched in the gut.
    Maybe in a separate post though?
    And maybe not so personally, if it helps. I have experiences myself of losing friends when my faith changed. And i’m sure everyone else does too. It’s an interesting topic.

  35. Stacey,

    “I think it would benefit us all if you were to set up a post that accepted questions and problems posed by everyone, in short and simple forms on each of these ideas – Christianity and the panthiestic holonomic view. Then maybe we can all discuss the ideas without emotion (hopefully) and grow in our understanding.”

    This is not the direction I want to steer things. Expressing negativity about Christianity openly has already cost me one friendship. It has become clear to me that I can’t say certain things without great cost. The idea of a discussion like the one you propose will inevitably raise temperatures. I’m going to concentrate more on expressing the positive changes I’m going through.

    Ultimately though, this isn’t Christianity versus pantheism. I embraced panthiesm as an option only after coming to terms with some problems I had with Christianity – problems I don’t feel up to debating right now.

  36. Stacey


    Alrighty then. It is your blog after all, no matter how much we all try to take it over! 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s