2022-01-28
Last revision: 2023-09-03
In this chapter I use the word Jews, in addition to Christians and Muslims. The term Christian and the term Muslim are unambiguous. It is about a person of faith. The term Jew can be used for a follower of the Jewish faith and for an atheist with Jewish parents. The term Jew is used in this chapter only for adherents of the Jewish faith.
It is difficult for unbelievers to understand that believers attach so much importance to the judgment of their 'god' over their lives. The relationship between believing people and their god is difficult in Jewish, Christian and Islamic cultures. These religions are based on the following principles:
There is an almighty god with a personal consciousness, who can and will intervene directly and deliberately in creation.
This almighty god is very interested in every person, keeps an eye on every person individually and is willing and able to reward and punish people individually.
Although this god is omnipotent and omniscient, he makes mistakes. For example, he creates man in his own image and likeness. Then he is dissatisfied with the result and destroys man (or part of humanity) with a deluge, with epidemics, wars, fire from heaven, volcanic eruptions, famines, etc.
He appoints a few prophets and orders them to record his word in a holy book. Every faith has its own holy book, which differs from the other holy books in quite a few respects. Specifically: The Torah, the Bible and the Quran. Some of the supporters also state:
Everything God has ever said or might ever say in the future is in our holy book. Everything that is not in our holy book is false and comes from the anti-god (Devil, Satan, Beelzebub, etc.) God cannot (and should not) grow or change his mind. Everything is fixed in this book and no letter (jot or tittle) may be changed.
Islam then states as an extra point: Our prophet is the very last prophet. Allah is not allowed to appoint a new prophet, because then our holy book will no longer be correct. So: Anyone who calls himself a prophet is, according to Islam, an emissary of the anti-god.
It is not only anti-theists who find these principles strange. I am a spiritual heathen, and I also find these assumptions strange.
My father was a strict Reformed. In the Reformed faith you are really terrified of God. God is the terrible ogre. As a human being you are sinful and evil, a bag full of maggots and worms. You cannot redeem yourself or hope for redemption. Only through the grace of Jesus can one sometimes be saved.
My mother's mother died when my mother was four years old. My mother was mainly raised in Catholic boarding schools by crazy nuns. Her mind was childlike and very primitive. It was filled with age-old Catholic nonsense, diligently perpetuated by the nuns.
I am mainly influenced by my mother. She stuffed me with Catholic nonsense for the first four years of my life. My father only interfered with me when he was furious or sexually frustrated. My parents divorced when I was four. I stayed with my father until I was seven, then in a children's home until I was eleven. So from the age of four to eleven I received little religious formation. At the age of 11, aid workers from Child Protection Service thought it was a good idea to house me with my crazy mother. I left home at the age of 17. Mentally I was not quite well then.
At the age of 8 I bought a chemistry box in the children's home and started reading books about chemistry and physics. Once at my mother's house, I built a laboratory in the attic, bought a microscope and became intensively involved in chemistry and physics. At the age of 15 I read books on quantum physics and the theory of relativity.
So, on the one hand, I am filled with retarded superstitions. 'Retarded superstition' may be hurtful to some of the believers. Still, I use this term because I just don't have a better term for it. It is a correct description of the ideas with which I have been indoctrinated. On the other hand, through my own efforts I have learned to think and reason scientifically. I have learned to look critically at the world.
I also became critical towards 'science'. 'Science' is between quotes, because 'science' is NOT scientific, it is a religion. When I was 15 or 16 years old, I started to read a book of Einstein about relativity. It became clear to me, that he did not understand his own theory. I wrote a Rebuttal of Einstein. And then I found out, that I could find nobody that could discus this intelligently. Some people suggested, that I should follow a university study of physics, 'and then I would understand'. Just like Catholics advise you to go to seminary, 'and then you will understand the immaculate conception'. At the same time I found out, that teachers at school did not understand what they were teaching. Example:
Question of teacher: Karl Marx stated, that the most industrialized countries would become the first communist countries. Is this true or false?
My answer: True. The Netherlands is the most industrialized country and it is the only communist country.
Teacher: That is wrong. The Netherlands is a capitalistic country and The Soviet Union is a communist country.
The truth? This discussion was in 1977. The Netherlands at that time was the most communistic country EVER. Thanks to prime minister Den Uyl. The Soviet Union never was a communist country. In a communist country the means of production belong to the people, in a capitalist country the means of production belong to private corporations and private persons. In the Soviet Union the means of production belonged to the Party and not to the people. So the Soviet Union was an ugly example of 'state-capitalism'. It was a fraud from the beginning to the end.
This teacher did not understand, that a country is not communistic when it is called communistic. You should check the real world, and not rely on a fictional mental view of the world. But in the real world, the teachers have the power to grade the students. And they are payed by the government or private persons to shape the students in the desired form. The purpose of schools is not to educate or to develop students, but to 'dumb them down' and drill them into obedient drones.
Since puberty I have resisted this 'dumbing down', I resisted 'schooling' and rejected 'being shaped into an obedient drone'.
At the age of 14 I read a number of books by Paul Brunton, based on mentalism. According to ordinary science, only that which we can perceive exists. So people only believe in the physical world. Scientifically, however, there is no proof whatsoever for the existence of the physical world. Its existence cannot be proven. We believe there is a physical world. But that belief does take place in our minds.
According to the agreements, you will see this text on paper or on a screen. Scientifically this is incorrect. You don't see any paper or a screen. Photons of light are reflected off paper and hit your eye. Or light from the screen hits your eye. In your eye, chemical reactions cause nerve impulses. Behind your eyes is a thick layer of sensory nerves, which filter and preprocess most of the impulses. Then the nerve impulses enter the thalamus dorsalis. If you have learned through conditioning not to see certain things, the information is blocked here. If your unconscious allows you to see consciously, the information passes to the visual cortex. There, the information is divided into many slices, with each type of information being processed in its own brain region. For example, horizontal lines are handled differently than vertical lines. Colors are processed differently than lines.
Suppose you are reading this text from a book. You see this book, you hear the sounds around you, you smell your surroundings, you feel the pages of this book and maybe now you taste a sip of tea or coffee. Where is the world you perceive? Each sense receives completely different information. Your eyes respond to light photons. Your ears respond to pressure differences in the air. Your nose reacts to odor molecules in the air. Your tongue reacts to chemicals in food and to the temperature of that food. Your skin reacts to pressure differences, electrical and magnetic impulses and to temperature. Each flow of information is processed in its own part of the brain. Each stream is divided into a large number of sub-streams. And in the end you perceive a total world. Where is that world?
You compose the world you perceive yourself. According to the scientists, you do that with your brain. But that's just a belief. Scientists have created the image of the brain in their minds, based on a number of completely different streams of information. Various signals come from the physical world (if it exists), of which we form a world view somewhere. There is no proof whatsoever that this world really exists. It is unlikely that the world, if it really exists, is the same as the worldview we have formed.
Without this development, I might have become a skeptical scientist. If you think through and analyze in a scientific way, you come to the conclusion that science's belief in the evidence of a physical world is no more than a belief. This belief system is much more rational and much more developed than the primitive religions of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. These religions block themselves by desperately clinging to old books, which reflect the scientific insights of the time in which they were written. Science is a belief that rigorously rejects clinging to ancient discoveries and ancient insights. That is why science is developing rapidly.
Science is thus a superior believe system over Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Not only because the insights are much more modern. The chief cause of the superiority of science is the rejection of holding on to the old. Science is a shelf of believed facts that scientists try to disprove. Scientists do their best to prove that their beliefs or the beliefs of their colleagues or teachers are wrong. They try to find evidence that ideas are wrong. Which Jew, Christian or Muslim spends his whole life looking for evidence of the non-existence of God? Most Jews, Christians and Muslims hastily look away when confronted with things that are contrary to their faith.
Many scientists refuse to admit that they hold a belief. They have learned to contrast science with faith and to rebel against faith. In the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries this was necessary in order to free science from the influence of Christianity. Science was like a teenager who had to rebel against his parents in order to become independent. Science has now outgrown the parents. So I suggest that science behaves maturely.
Adulthood also includes looking at yourself honestly and objectively. When science examines itself, one quickly discovers that science rests on unprovable assumptions. In the philosophy of science people are considerably more reserved with statements than in the applied sciences. As long as science deals with the concrete, it is razor sharp and very effective. As soon as things can no longer be analyzed and synthesized, the scientific method proves difficult to use. Once you have realized that, you will naturally become humble.
Back to the development of my faith. After my discovery of mentalism, I soon found the psychology of Carl Jung. Jung is not taken too seriously as a psychologist. He occupied himself with things that are very difficult to investigate with scientific methods. Yet Jung is very popular with people who are interested in their own spiritual development. Jung helps to give meaning to your life. Since most people get psychological problems because their lives seem meaningless, the psychology of creating meaning and purpose is very meaningful.
According to Jung, we have a collective unconscious. From this come our dreams and religious impulses. Jung also believed that religion arose from a religious instinct. This assumption was not appreciated. Recently I saw a documentary with Jane Goodall, the famous chimpanzee researcher. She showed chimps dancing and making sounds near a waterfall. It reminded her and me of a religious ceremony. I see in this an indication of the existence of a religious instinct.
A few million years ago there was a drought in Africa. Our ancestors then left the forest and colonized the savannah. Why did they do that?
Perhaps there was an ape with 'visions'. 'Having visions' is often regarded as a sign of mental illness or a dis-functional brain. Perhaps we evolved to humans because one of our ape-like ancestors had visions of a paradise beyond the savannah. And perhaps we did not become an extinct species because our ancestors were guided by an ape with visions.
It seems probable to me, that we survived as a species, because we have a religious instinct and because we have visions of possible futures.
According to Jung, we have archetypes in our collective unconscious. Thus we have an archetypal father (Father Heaven), an archetypal mother (Great Mother, Mother Earth) and an archetypal child. These archetypes control our unconscious and can act as channels for psychic energy or motivation.
Why does a woman want children? Almost every woman has an ideal image of a child: the Great Child. No mother-to-be fantasizes about a child with serious abnormalities or about a future serial killer. They fantasize about a wonderful child with a fantastic future.
Why do mammals and birds take care of their young? They didn't learn that in school. Apparently, seeing a young releases psychic energy in the mammals and birds, forcing them to feed and protect that young. It can be argued that this is due to hormones. But how do those hormones work? How does a mother cat link seeing her cub to maternal behavior? Apparently there is a constellation in the structure of a cat's nervous system, which encourages maternal behavior. Jung called this the mother archetype.
If you read the Gospel of Matthew and John carefully, Jesus turns out to be a bastard, Mary turned out to be an adulteress and Joseph refused to recognize Jesus as his son. In the first 1,000 years of Christianity, Mary was hardly spoken of. She was certainly not revered. But after the Christians destroyed the belief in all pagan mother goddesses, Mary worship suddenly blossomed. She was venerated as a holy mother, who through an immaculate conception had given birth to the son of God. There is nothing in the Bible that justifies such a belief. Considering the fact that Jesus did not want to speak to his mother, because she did not do the will of his father, you can conclude that Mary was not good according to Jesus' judgment. (Matthew 12:46-50.) Yet many Christians venerate Saint Mary. I think they are prompted to do so by the mother archetype. Belief in Mother Earth is taboo for Christians. Mary is merely a substitute for the mother archetype and a receiver for the energy of the mother archetype.
Why is Jesus often presented as a child? Why does the image of a bastard in a stable make such a big impression on hundreds of millions of people? Why is there so much mention of large-scale infanticide by tyrants in the Bible? These inner images receive psychic energy from the child archetype.
Why do Catholics mainly have an image of a dear lord and Reformed people mainly have an image of a vengeful god? When a Catholic plays the beast at Carnival, he confesses, does penance and is forgiven. A Reformed man states: 'Whoever loves his children chastens them'. Or: 'He who loves his children does not spare the whip'. The image of God of believers often appears to correspond to the nature of the father or priest. They simply project an image of the father or the priest onto the sky and call it god. If necessary, a long beard is added and the copy of the father is provided with a white robe and a large book.
This image of god is often called a father archetype. I think that's a misleading name.
Chimpanzees, humans, wolves and dogs live in groups with a leader. Cats have no hierarchical group life. If you bring a dog into your home, the dog will behave as if it is part of the group (the family). A cat will never do that. A cat stays on its own. You can teach a cat some tricks, but it will always remain an individual. You can deduce from this that humans, chimpanzees, wolves and dogs have an archetypal leader and a cat does not. In chimpanzees, the father is usually dead before the young enters puberty. Nevertheless, the young chimpanzee recognizes the leader(s). He/She projects his leader archetype onto the leaders and then feels compelled to obey and behave submissively. It is therefore better to speak of a leader archetype instead of a father archetype.
The mother archetype governs mothers' behavior and behavior towards mothers. A woman in the grip of the mother archetype behaves maternally in a primitive (mammal-like) way. A childlike person projects his mother archetype onto a woman and then behaves childishly towards this woman. This woman may very well be a goddess or other spirit being.
The child archetype controls children's behavior and behavior towards children. A person in the grip of the child archetype behaves childishly and immature. With his behavior this person asks for maternal behavior from women and protective behavior from men. If a woman projects her child archetype onto a child or childlike person, she becomes a mother. If a man projects his child archetype onto a child or childlike person, he is going to protect.
It would be to much of a distraction to include gender-bending in previous paragraph. With the word 'woman' I mean a person with a feminine nature, with the word 'man' I mean a person with a masculine nature. The shape of the sex-organs is usually used to differentiate between man and woman. But it seems that the functioning of the brain and the structure of the hypothalamus determines whether you have a feminine, masculine or other personality.
The leader archetype governs the behavior of male leaders and the behavior toward leaders. A human in the grip of the leader archetype behaves like a leader in a primitive (ape-like) way. A follower projects his leader archetype onto a leader and then behaves submissively and masochistically towards that leader. This leader may very well be a god or other spirit being. Yahu, the Lord and Allah are basically recipients of the leader archetype.
The female archetype governs women's behavior and behavior towards women. A woman (or transvestite) in the grip of the female archetype behaves feminine in a primitive (mammal-like) way. A person in love projects his female archetype onto a woman and behaves possessively. For example, one is in love with a woman and so that woman belongs to him. His female archetype is actually a catching net to ensnare and bind a woman in. Men in the grip of their female archetype can be very violent. (See Femicide.)
The man archetype controls male behavior and behavior toward males. A man in the grip of the man archetype behaves masculine in a primitive (mammal-like) manner. A person in love projects her man archetype onto a man and behaves possessively. For example, one is in love with a man and so that man belongs to her. She will do anything to get that man in her possession.
People controlled by an archetype do not behave humanly, but primitive and ape-like. Reason and logic are drowned out by the psychic force of the archetype.
In the documentary The Family of Chimps by Bert Haanstra, the chimpanzees of Burgers Zoo in Arnhem were filmed. At a certain point, a fake lion is made to emerge from the bushes. The big strong leaders sit safely high in the trees. The young apes and the females go screeching towards the lion and throwing sand and branches at the lion.
People controlled by the leader archetype behave much the same. The leaders retreat and the followers risk their lives or sacrifice themselves.
Suicide bombers are people in the grip of the leader archetype. Their egos and desire for personal survival are drowned out by the psychic power of the leader archetype. In the name of (for example) Allah they throw away their lives. Their human leaders remain safely in the background. If these leaders thought humanly about their own behavior, they would be ashamed of themselves. But they can't. Their human values are drowned out by the leader archetype, which grips them tightly.
Genesis says, "God created man in his own image and likeness." If you see god as an archetype, then there is indeed some re-creation of man by the leader archetype. If you see god as the creator of the universe, this statement is absurd.
Astrophysicists state, that the Universe is the result of 'a big bang'. What caused this bang? And how do they know that the bang was big? Perhaps the creator of the universe ate beans with onions and let out a string of bangs. And perhaps our Universe was 'a tiny bang'.
I myself prefer to say: 'And I created my gods and goddesses according to my inner images and likenesses.' Therefore I am a heathen and polytheist. I have multiple archetypes and therefore also multiple gods and goddesses. That is why I like the ancient Germanic believe system. As Julius Caesar wrote: 'The Germanic people do not worship their gods. They worship the sun, the moon, the stars and the fire.' It would be silly to worship the gods and goddesses that I have created.
Things changes when you start to see Anima Mundi as the soul of the earth, and that self-awareness of this soul is developed and maintained by a collective of human souls. And when you see Óðinn (Woden) as the All-father and as Anima Solaris. Then we are no longer believing in an anthropomorphic god outside ourselves. We see our human selves then as part of 'god'.
I have once proposed to hold an annual God election and a Goddess election. Kind of like a beauty pageant. Anyone may nominate a god or goddess. The most beautiful or nicest are chosen. A year is then in the service of that god and that goddess. Some people said that I would offend the Christians and Muslims. Bunch of party poopers!!!
In the Old Testament, prophets are mentioned, who have contact with God and who would have seen images of God. In the paintings of various medieval painters there is also mention of seeing God. Nowadays you don't hear much from people who see God or who think that they are his prophet.
Now it so happens that I myself have been in heaven, and that God has appointed me as his prophet:
Monday December 23, 1991 I held a shamanic ritual. I had a very great and mighty vision. I ascended to heaven, right through the roof of the Universe. There I met 'God'. An enormous old wise figure that greeted me in a fatherly way. 'God' gave me a book and sent me back to Earth. I believe that book symbolized a new religion. I was sent to Earth to spread this new religion. With new energy I went back to Earth and went back to work.
Note. A shamanic ritual is a ritual in which inner images are displayed outwardly. For example, you place the symbols of the four elements in a circle, you dance in that circle, you sing 'sacred' songs and you surrender to your inner self. This has a beneficial effect on the mind. Many people believe that with such a ritual psychic powers are also aroused. There is no scientific evidence for that.
So since December 23, 1991 I am the prophet of God. There is only one god, mine. And I am the only and last prophet of god. You must believe me or you will go to hell. What the hell is? No idea. I have never been there.
The preceding paragraph is of course meant as a joke. Unfortunately, there are many believers (Jews, Christians, Muslims) who put forward their image of god as the only true god. This causes a lot of struggle and misery.
After this vision, I started a magazine, which got no further than one issue. I tried to convert people, but I couldn't. After a few months I went back to heaven and asked God for my wages and money for my missionary work. My money was gone and I just couldn't continue with my mission work. Besides, it didn't make any money and I had to make a living. In fact, I complained about my working conditions. My request for an Individual Employment Agreement was not honored. Neither was my request for money. As an almighty god he could have predicted the lotto numbers for me. Then I would have had money for my mission work. I soon found out that I was all alone.
The first encounter with God was an overwhelming experience. It is also very tempting to believe that you yourself are very special. Who wouldn't want to be a prophet of god? Who wouldn't want to be God's favorite? Prophets in the Old Testament were so addicted to their contact with God that they were willing to get stoned for it. Jesus got himself nailed to the cross for his addiction to God. John of the Cross spent most of his life in Catholic dungeons. There he stammered in masochistic ecstasy: "The darkness is light enough for me." If you look at the behavior of prophets towards their god and you compare it to the behavior of BDSM slaves towards their master, you will see many similarities. But of course I don't want to equate a BDSM master with god. Most BDSM masters and mistresses take good care of their slaves and do not put their lives in danger. There is no indication that God is interested in the lives and welfare of his prophets.
You can also formulate the foregoing differently. I personally believe that there is a higher intelligence that likes to support us. But as a human being you are often caught up in your ideas about god. You learned these ideas from your parents, teachers, and priests. Most people are completely captivated by their ideas and therefore cannot listen to the higher intelligence. Some people (prophets) occasionally receive something from the higher intelligence and place what they have received in the old familiar framework. (Jesus wanted to suffer for 'god' because this was tradition with the Jews. With the Jews you only count as a prophet when you are stoned.) Only very special people can radically break with everything they have learned before and see 'god' in a completely new way. I am such a special person.
If I had not learned to think scientifically, and if I had not known the theories of Carl Jung, Paul Brunton and Ramana Maharishi, I would probably have been permanently overwhelmed by my vision. Now I remained critical and I continued to observe and analyze. As a result, I learned to deal with the energy of the leader archetype. I know from my own experience that with a lot of training you can learn to control and transform your archetypes. I have processed these training sessions into sound files and I call them TRANCE-FORMATION.
The way I saw 'god' and was taken up into heaven corresponds directly with the descriptions of prophets from the Old Testament and with paintings from the late Middle Ages. Why did my leader archetype take exactly this form? Isn't this proof of the existence of 'god'? Do we not see the same thing?
When Hindus have visions of 'god', they often see very different things. When Native Americans have visions of Nana Bozho, Manitou, or Wakan Tanka, they also see other things. There is a universal leader archetype, but no universal vision. The vision takes on a culturally determined form. My mother filled me with Catholic nonsense for the first four years of my life. I suppose that determined the shape of my vision.
So the existence of visions of 'god' is not proof of the existence of 'god'. It is only proof of the existence of visions and proof of the creativity of our unconscious.
Islam and Christianity originated from Judaism. Moses made a special faith around the desert god of his ancestors. According to tradition, he had to flee after killing an Egyptian foreman. Then he came in contact with Jethro, a high priest of the order of Melchizedek. Jethro taught him the philosophy of the Magoi priests of ancient Persia. Their teachings go back to the ancient Zarathustrians. In ancient Persia, Mazda was the sun god. This one could send out his good spirit (Spenta Mainyoes) over the earth and to his followers. In addition, there was also the dark spirit (Angro Mainyoes). This is the origin of all evil. We still encounter this same contradiction with the Christians, who set the devil against God.
One of the most 'holy' statements of the Zarathustrians is yatha ahu vairyo. See also Ahuna Vairya. It is difficult to translate. A very simplified translation would be: The Will of God is holy law. The Jews are not allowed to speak the name of God. They write it down with four letters: YHVH. Western people have turned this into 'Jehovah'. I believe, that it is 'Yahu' and that it is a contraction of Yatha Ahu or 'The will of God'. It is closely related to Inshallah.
There are other ideas about god and divine beings. Through their zeal for faith, Jews, Christians and Muslims have spread their ideas around the world. As a result, many people have the impression that their view of 'god' is the only image of 'god'. That is an incorrect assumption.
The Germanic peoples believed that there was a controlling something which they called 'ginn regin' (mighty regents). According to wikipedia the Lakota saw Wakan Tanka in a similar way.
The Germanic peoples believed in some spiritual entity which they called Woden. Woden woody was/is the spirit of a wood that has become alive. This entity was a shapeshifter, a trickster and had a fluid gender. Just like Nana Bozho, which was revered by the Shauwonoa.
In the book "Shawnese Traditions" of C. C. Trowbridge there is a tale from Black Hoof: The Tshilikauthee's, at present one of the divisions of the nation, lived on the opposite side of the sea. ... Its force was further augmented by the addition of the Thauweekeelau's, who came across the sea, but in what manner, they do not now recollect. (Page 61 - 62.) The Shawnee (or Shauwonoa) were divided in five divisions. There are stories, that two of these divisions came from across the sea. When I read stories about the life of the Shauwonoa leader Tecumseh, I found similarities with old Germanic traditions. Perhaps it is possible to get hard data on this subject with DNA comparison.
In Asia there are many very different views of 'the divine' among Buddhists, Taoists, Shamanists and others.
In elementary school I learned that monotheism is superior to polytheism. (Period 1967-1973.) I don't know if that's still taught today. I assume that Christian schools in particular teach that Christianity is superior. And that Islamic schools teach that Islam is superior.
If one states that monotheism is superior to polytheism, then one must also be able to substantiate this with good arguments. I've never heard a decent argument.
I argue that polytheism is superior to monotheism.
Monotheism:
If you believe that there is only one god (yours) and someone else worships another god, then that other person is guilty of retarded superstition or devil worship. The other must then be converted. If that doesn't work, unfortunately it is necessary to burn that other person alive to save his soul. Thus Christian charity.
Polytheism:
If there are multiple gods and goddesses and someone else worships another god or goddess, that's just his/her choice. Everyone chooses the god or goddess that best suits him/her. If one wants to worship multiple gods and goddesses, he can just go ahead.
Thus, polytheism is actually in harmony with human rights. Monotheism and human rights are mutually exclusive.
Some people believe that human rights are a modern invention. In the year 1,000 AD people in Iceland still lived according to Germanic law. There was religious freedom. Even when the Christians gained the majority, it was still allowed to profess the old Germanic faith. Man and woman were equal under Germanic law. It has never been different in Iceland. Under Germanic law, children have the same rights as adults as soon as they are able to express their will. Every free man had the right to speak at the Thing (the people's assembly). Every vote was worth the same. While in the rest of Europe people were widely persecuted and murdered for witchcraft, in Iceland only one person was put to death for witchcraft.
There were also differences with current human rights. The free people in Germanic culture had almost the same rights as are granted in human rights treaties. In addition, there were slaves. These had far fewer rights, but were not without rights. Compared to Roman law, slaves had more rights than Roman slaves. But modern human rights are - in my opinion - better than Germanic law, because slavery is not allowed. At least in theory. In reality, many people are bound by economic and social dependence, so that in practice they often have less freedom than a Germanic slave.
Germanic subjects, Roman slaves and medieval subjects had a lot of privacy and time for themselves. The modern wage slave and the modern self-employed person is more or less obliged to wear an electronic 'slave collar' day and night, with which he or she can be activated immediately. I'm talking about the smartphone here. A better name would be: dumbo-phone. The device is not very smart and frequent use of it makes you a bit dumb.
In 1968 Soft Machine sang: It begins with a blessing, it ends with a curse. Making life easy by making it worse. (Why are we sleeping.)
According to many humanists, human rights are tremendous progress. From a historical perspective, we are barely further than Iceland in the year 1,000 AD. We are still recovering from the very Christian dark ages.
The religions of Jews, Christians and Muslims are different from other religions. Some of the followers have killed people in the name of faith and in the name of 'god'. Any religious person that calls for murder as service to 'god' is wrong in my opinion. There are tolerant religions, which leave people free in their faith. In many cultures, the relationship between humans and 'the spirit world' is a personal matter. 'If god or if a god or goddess wants to tell you something, he/she/it will do it himself'. Such is the ordinary attitude. With Jews, Christians and Muslims, the priest tells you what 'god' wants from you. The priests of these three religions have monopolized contact with 'god'. When simple people claim to have contact with 'god', they are often persecuted. In the 16th century in the Netherlands illiterate people were burned for reading heretical writings. The Catholics were so enraged at the breaking of their monopoly that they started beating wildly and murdering on a large scale.
The word 'god' is not Christian but Germanic. In the old Germanic languages the word 'god' occurs only as a word without gender. Almost all nouns in Germanic languages are masculine or feminine, but god is neuter. The words "gods", "goddess", and "goddesses" did not come into existence until Christian times. They are inventions of Christians. In all Germanic languages, the word 'god' is closely related to the word 'good'. From this linguistic analysis you can conclude:
There is only one god and this one is good.
God does not have a gender.
It is not clear if the old word 'god' was used as a singular or a plural noun, or for a singular entity or as a group of spirit beings. One must keep in mind that the Germanic peoples did not write. The writers were trained by Christians or were Christian. It seems quite certain, that the word 'god' was used for 'one entity', but it seems also that this 'entity' was seen as composed from multiple elements. Probably 'god' was used similar to 'ginn regin' which translates to 'mighty regents'. Personally I see the ginn regin as an assembly without form or shape. They are before manifestation. Óðinn (Woden) is one of the ginn regin and also a manifested entity. Not manifested in the physical world but manifested in higher layers of existence. (See Nine layers)
In the history lessons at primary school (1967-1973), the Germanic people and the Germanic 'gods' were scorned. Our ancestors would have skipped around in beaver skins with a club over their shoulders. If you look at the gold and silver jewelry and the bronze lurs (musical instruments), you get a completely different picture. We can deduce from the craftsmanship that in the year 0 one must have passed on knowledge continuously for many hundreds of years in order to arrive at such craftsmanship.
Furthermore, the 'gods' of the Germans were not gods. Óðinn (Woden), Thor (Donar), and Týr (Thius) were Aces or Aesir. They were wind beings. Freya and Freyr were Vanes or Vanir. They were water elves. In addition, there were the Jötunn (fire giants) and the Thursir (ice giants). These beings were not worshiped as gods, but as natural forces. Today we might call them forces in the human mind or archetypes.
So the Germans knew God as a genderless or hermaphroditic creator of the universe. God was good because it created the universe. Furthermore, God was unknowable. So you cannot say anything about God. You cannot know God. And you can't sacrifice to God, because the whole universe already belongs to God. The idea of sacrificing to God is very primitive. The Germanic peoples did sacrifice to the Aesir and Vanir, but not to God.
The universe came into existence somehow or maybe it has always been there. According to modern physics, the universe originated from the Big Bang. From what did the Big Bang originate? What came before the Big Bang?
Was the Big Bang caused by
blind forces of nature?
or by a self-conscious being?
In the first case, there is no creator of the universe. That's a possibility that we don't need to explore further. How can you research something that doesn't exist? That is why in the following analysis I assume the existence of a creator with self-awareness, without making statements about whether or not it exists. I'm just exploring the possibilities. If there is a self-conscious creator, what can we say about it?
Let's downsize the creator to a human scale. Imagine a human being looking at the universe through a microscope. The creator has just masturbated and looks through his microscope at his own seed and sees what we consider to be the universe.
The idea that the creator would jerk off and the universe be his seed is not a new idea. Many ancient cultures have these kinds of ideas about the creative process. I purposely write it in flat terms, because the semblance of sanctity hinders the investigation.
In that universe, the creator may be able to distinguish separate galaxies, as physicists can see molecules under a good microscope. If the creator has very good equipment, he may be able to distinguish individual galaxies, as physicists with the very best microscopes can see atoms. If the creator has even better equipment, he may also be able to see individual planets. Our physicists are unable to see individual electrons.
Christians and Muslims seem to believe that the creator of the universe is watching each and every person individually. I doubt whether a self-conscious creator is able to see an individual planet. Measured on a human scale, it seems unlikely that this creator is looking specifically at the planet Earth. If you have any idea of the number of galaxies, the number of stars in our galaxy, and the number of planets in our galaxy, it seems hard to believe that the creator is looking specifically at the planet Earth. And even if the creator did, it is very unlikely that he would be able to see individual people.
Some believers glorify suffering in the service of the creator. What is the point of suffering if the creator is unable to perceive individual people? Or if the creator is not interested in individual people at all? Then all that suffering is pointless. Therefore, it is difficult for these types of believers to examine their faith and the universe. Glorifying suffering is not compatible with modern astrophysics. Any astrophysicist is fully aware of his own smallness in relation to the universe. Such smallness is incompatible with an ideology of suffering for the creator. An ideology of suffering is based on the importance of you as a person and ultimately comes down to pride. Your suffering is only important if you are important. And there is no indication of that.
Chimpanzee males often kill males from other chimpanzee groups. Why do they do that? According to some pseudo-scientists, they do this because they safeguard the interests of their group and their territory. So they would do this to further their economic interests. According to these pseudo-scientists, these chimpanzees are more rational and intelligent than graduated economists and they have a much better picture of their world than the average medieval duke or count. I do not believe that. I think animals try to increase pleasure and avoid discomfort. Chimpanzee men kill because they enjoy it. They are not concerned with seeking a rational explanation for their behavior and they are not guided by ethical and economic considerations. The average chimpanzee is not a qualified ethicist or economist.
Why do human men often kill men from other human groups? Because they like it. Many human men have ethical inhibitions about killing. Moses did not have this inhibitions. That's why he killed an Egyptian boss and had to flee into the desert. He came back with a belief in which the killing of men from other groups is done in the service of 'god'. Christians and Muslims have adopted that faith and expanded it further. For example, very holy Catholic inquisitors could torture people and burn them alive to save their souls. To overcome their innate ethical inhibitions they had their very Christian faith. They tortured and killed not because it tastes good, but as a service to 'god'. Now it turns out there is no reason to believe that a creator of the universe is interested in people. There is no evidence whatsoever that any creator can see us. That makes it difficult to justify torture and murder.
It doesn't make much sense to see 'god' as the creator of the universe. If there is a self-conscious creator, it is unlikely that this creator is aware of the existence of humans. So we better develop a different image of 'god'.
Imagine that our solar system is controlled by a self-conscious and immaterial being. Let's call this creature Anima Solaris. There is no scientific evidence for the existence of such a being. But in some visions I came into contact with something that is similar to this Anima Solaris. Imagine that Anima Solaris really exists. What would he/she/it do? How would Anima Solaris look at us? Could Anima Solaris be able to see us?
If Anima Solaris controls the entire solar system, Anima Solaris has other things to do than deal with people. Perhaps all of humanity is starting to get interesting, because we have developed space travel. As we send objects to the Moon, Mars and the other planets, we may be attracting attention for the first time. To assume that Anima Solaris follows the life of John Doe at 24 Appeltree street in Little Rock is amusing at best.
The ancient Germanic peoples saw Óðinn (also called Odin or Woden) as Allfather, father of all. Óðinn has one flaming eye: the sun.
According to mythology, Óðinn hides his eye in the well of Mimir. This is often explained as a sacrifice of 'his other eye'. That, in my opinion, is a misinterpretation. Óðinn has only one flaming eye: the sun. When he hides it in Mimir's well, then the sun goes down. Mimir means: mumbler. The well of Mimir is the sea. See: Óðinn as Anima_Solaris
In Germanic mythology there is a relationship between Óðinn as Anima Solaris and Jörd as Anima Mundi or Mother Earth.
Imagine that the earth is a living being ( Gaia ) and that it has a soul. Let's call this soul Anima Mundi. Belief in Anima Mundi or Mother Earth has been widespread among many cultures and throughout human history. This belief is the least incredible of the beliefs discussed thus far.
There are different organs in the human body. Every organ has its own cells, which are very different from other cells. Let's compare the earth to this. We can consider a forest as an organ. We can see rivers as veins, streams as blood vessels. We could see people as nerve cells. One of our nerve cells (probably) has no self-awareness. But our entire nervous system together does have self-awareness. One person (usually) has no consciousness of the earth, but does have self-consciousness. Do all people together form the self-consciousness of Anima Mundi? Can a person have contact with Anima Mundi?
Imagine a radiant sphere above your crown. This sphere is often called the crown chakra. By regularly imagining this luminous orb, you are directing psychic energy into this orb for it to evolve. Doing this often can cause the orb to open. This opening of the crown chakra is accompanied by a feeling of happiness and oneness with everything. This process is described in similar terms by many different people. Is this a purely internal process? Or is this a method of contacting Anima Mundi?
The existence of a creator of the universe cannot be scientifically investigated and is beyond the scope of science. The existence of Anima Solaris is -at present- beyond the scope of scientific research. The existence of Anima Mundi may well be scientifically researchable. If there is a definition of god that can be scientifically researched, it is Anima Mundi.
Suppose Anima Mundi exists, is she interested in humanity or in individual people? Does she want us to adapt our behavior to her wishes? Or are we just interesting study objects?
Imagine a biologist who has built an anthill in his laboratory and who studies these ants. Now these ants gain self-awareness and develop awareness of their environment. They have the idea that their anthill was created by god (the biologist), who also provides them with food. At some point, these ants start a religion and worship the biologist as a god. In a procession they go to the edge of their enclosure and offer there an ant offering or an offering of ant food. I can imagine that the biologist will be mesmerized for a while looking at those crazy ants. He then realizes that the ants have changed their behavior in response to his presence and that this is ruining his study. After all, he is interested in the natural behavior of ants. So he destroys the ants and starts again with a new batch.
Suppose Anima Mundi exists. Is she a punishing goddess? Suppose a nerve cell in my body sends out wrong signals. Am I going to punish that cell? Do I condemn that cell to hell after cell death? Do I hand that cell over to the devil after its death?
However you analyze and synthesize the image of God, no punishing god will come out. The punitive god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims appears to come down to threats and intimidation by the priests. The priests bind the adherents into slavery. One is chained with threats and with a magic book. The magical book (Torah, Qur'an, Bible) exerts a psychic power on the minds of the believers.
In some of my visions I saw myself as 'a hand of god'. Note that I write 'a hand of god' and not 'the hand of god'. It seems to me, that energy from 'god' came in from my back and took control of my body. My hands and feet appeared to be 'fingers on a hand of god'. I also saw this with other people.
Imagine that all people are 'hands of god'. Imagine that you are 'a hand of god'. Are you a hand that does what you want? Or are you a hand that is guided by the energy of god?
And what does the word 'god' mean in this context? It is certainly NOT the creator of the Universe. It is easy to say, that it is the 'ginn regin' (the mighty regents). But then we are replacing one word for another. Perhaps it is Anima Mundi. But I write deliberately 'perhaps'.
Talk does not lead to more understanding. Without direct experience talk is just a concatenation of words, that stimulate our mental being. Talk is not very important.
With Light and Love, Andreas Firewolf
Do you like this page? Promote it !!!
I do not participate with twitter and most other 'social' media. But feel free to tweet about this page. Or put a link to this page on your facebook page, if you have one.
You can find more about social media on the page Social media.
This form is ONLY to comment on this page. What you write can be published.
If you want to send a message to Andreas Firewolf click on Contact-form
To give feedback about this page or about this site click on:
Andreas Firewolf, nederlandse site
Variatarian vegetarische recepten
is a form of meditation with the objective to transform yourself. You re-create yourself during a trance. A trance is NOT a state of oblivion, you do not forget about yourself. It is just an alternate state of consciousness.
A TRANCE-FORMATION is an audio file containing a spoken meditation or visualization with a soothing background.
The background features a differential beat, which helps your brain go to a specific level of awareness.
This is a description of a model of the cosmos. A new cosmology. This model has nine three-dimensional layers. Several forces connect these layers through the fourth dimension.
Most people believe, that they can see the physical world, but that is not possible. Our senses perceive an abstraction of the physical word. What we 'see' is a mental image of the world.
and I am firmly against privacy violations.
This site respects your privacy. Read here more about it.
This website has a lot of pages and a lot of information. This page will give you information about how to navigate these websites.
When authors use the label Óðinn, what are they referring to? Do different authors use the label Óðinn to refer to the same 'thing'?
I distinguish the following different meanings of Óðinn.
Óðinn as father of all, as Anima Solaris.
Óðinn as Hangatýr.
Woden woody as deity of the woods.
Óðinn as father of the fallen.
Óðinn as a heroic person, a king, a sorcerer, a con-artist.
According to the Gaia hypothesis, the earth is a living being. Anima Mundi is the world soul, who gives life to the earth.
We can compare individual people with individual nerve cells in the human body. And humanity as the nervous system of Mother Earth.
Questions: Does Anima Mundi have self-awareness? Does humanity collectively form a self-conscious being? Do we as humanity enable the self-awareness of Anima Mundi?
autobiography
Spiritual Development
Poems
nine layers
Selfishness
Spiritual materialism
Spiritual hygiene
Aura cleansing
Students about Firewolf
Workshop
Science and sanity
What is science?
Rebuttal of Einstein
Andreas Firewolf is a shamanic healer. But he does NOT heal your physical body. For physical diseases you should consult a medical professional.
Andreas Firewolf can cleanse your aura and chakras, remove blockades in your energy system and help you with emotional, mental and spiritual development.
This is a description of a model of the cosmos. A new cosmology. This model has nine three-dimensional layers. Several forces connect these layers through the fourth dimension.
Most people believe, that they can see the physical world, but that is not possible. Our senses perceive an abstraction of the physical word. What we 'see' is a mental image of the world.
According to the Gaia hypothesis, the earth is a living being. Anima Mundi is the world soul, who gives life to the earth.
We can compare individual people with individual nerve cells in the human body. And humanity as the nervous system of Mother Earth.
Questions: Does Anima Mundi have self-awareness? Does humanity collectively form a self-conscious being? Do we as humanity enable the self-awareness of Anima Mundi?
You can solve problems together with others!
Don't be a green frog that lets itself boil because it doesn't dare to jump out of its comfort zone. Jump out of your pan and become a fully human!
Materialism is the attachment to possessions, status or wealth. Spiritual materialism is the attachment to spiritual status, attachment to a particular belief. The idea that you are higher because you have a certain faith, or follow a certain spiritual teaching, is an expression of spiritual materialism.
Spiritual materialism is also the use of spiritual means to achieve selfish earthly goals.
Today (2018) there are many non-physical epidemics. One epidemic of madness and/or idiocy is not over and the next is already on its way.
Non-physical epidemics arise from lack of:
There is nothing wrong with the world
Change yourself
The world is changing
How do you save yourself?
