Walsch: The Two Faced God
Walsch: The Two Faced God
This section of the book deals challenges our belief that God is both malevolent and benevolent – that God could both love and hate, create and destroy, reward and punish. Tomorrow's GodTomorrow's God, Walsch argues, destroys nothing, rejects nothing and punishes nothing (131). Yesterday's God is a two-faced God but Tomorrow's God is consistent and congruent.
Chapter 9* deals with religious beliefs and civil law – and how our religious institutions tell us not only what we should think is right and wrong, but what God thinks is right and wrong. And then this becomes law. Walsch uses same-sex marriage as an example of where something that causes no one any harm is deemed illegal because it is considered immoral by powerful religious institutions. This argument is expanded to many other behaviours that are considered immoral – in utero genetic manipulation, 'graven images', being unshaven, females leaving their home without a male escort, and "females being seen in public without a head-to-toe covering over their body" (117).
Oh yeah, Walsch gets right into it – he challenges all religious law, stating that the judgments made by religious institutions (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc.) are only that, judgments, and have no place in civil code and no place in a definition of Tomorrow's God. Remember, his argument is that God has no preference. God is Life – Life is impersonal. Life does not care who you sleep with or what you wear.
Walsch briefly discusses honour and fanatics. He argues that "people become fanatical when they feel their point of view is not being honored" (122). This is an excellent tip for negotiating disagreement: you don't have to agree, but you have to honour another's point of view because if you don't it will feel like you are trying to 'disappear' their opinion and thus, them, and they will fight with everything they have to survive and be seen.
Furthermore, when we fight against something or someone we are pushing away the peace we seek. Until we "see God in the face of [our] enemy, [we] cannot see God at all" for there is no enemy but "only that part of you which is in contrast to another part of you" (142). He continues that when someone hurts us, it present both parties with an opportunity to learn more of Who They Really Are – to get to the root of the problem and effect real healing. To remember that it is rare for anyone to hurt without feeling they have been wronged or threatened or hurt first (143).** He asks us to ask, "Please tell me… what hurts you so much that you feel you have to hurt me to heal it?" (143). It takes a courageous soul to ask that question and to really hear the answer.
*In this section he mentions Karen Armstrong, and it is very appropriate for she has recently released the Charter of Compassion which brings together the thread of the Golden Rule that runs through all religions in some form. I highly recommend you check it out if this type of inclusive spirituality speaks to you. You can find it here and her 2008 TED Prize acceptance speech where she laid out her wish for the Charter here. He specifically mentions her book, The Battle for God: A History of FundamentalismThe Battle for God, another one on my wish list. At least I think it is, I'll have to check that out.)