Against Thee Alone Have I Sinned

Against Thee Alone Have I Sinned
By, Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
11/13/2024

This post was inspired by an essay by Mike Shreve, a pastor in Florida, about why he did not practice yoga as a Christian. Mike and I were in 3HO (Happy, Healthy, Holy Oreganization), the American Sikh movement led by Yogi Bhajan. I was a member of this yogic religion from 1976 to 1982. Mike was one of the Yogi’s first students and became a prominent yoga teacher. Mike left 3HO in 1970 when he had a life-changing insight into the truth of Christ as the Way. Mike eventually became a pastor, with a ministry focus on comparing world religions and Christianity.

Mike’s essay, “Seven Reasons I No Longer Practice Yoga,” came to mind as I read Psalm 51:4, which I read in verse of the day from the Berean Newsletter (published daily by www.cgg.org). Note: I am not affiliated with the Armstrong movement, but I enjoy their daily newsletter and commentary. In this verse, the Psalmist confesses that he has sinned and that his sin was against God alone. This verse indicates that all sin is only against God, which implies God is present in all and is all.

Psalms 51:1-4, (1) Have mercy upon me, O God, According to Your lovingkindness; According to the multitude of Your tender mercies, Blot out my transgressions. (2) Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, And cleanse me from my sin. (3) For I acknowledge my transgressions, And my sin is always before me. (4) Against You, You only, have I sinned, And done this evil in Your sight— That You may be found just when You speak, And blameless when You judge. 

From our perspective, sin seems to be against people. An ordinary/typical interpretation of this verse might be that we have sinned against God because God did not like how we acted toward another person. Such an interpretation is plausible and certainly our most natural interpretation of this verse. It seems that most people conceive of God as a distant paternal disciplinarian, judging and punishing us for behavior He doesn’t like and loving us when we behave in ways that please Him.

But Psalm 51:14 says. “Against You, You only, have I sinned.” Such strong wording implies that no one other than God has experienced anything. Such a concept is radical because it contradicts our sense of individuation. When I introspect about my feelings toward another who has offended me by murder, theft, infidelity, and perjury, I don’t naturally feel or think that I am God or that these acts hurt God.

However, Psalm 51:14 clearly states otherwise. Every sin is against God. He feels it. This issue is perhaps the defining distinction between a Christian and a pagan/pantheistic worldview. This issue appears irreconcilable, as the two views are mutually exclusive. Either God is separate from creation or immanent within it. The two worldviews cannot both be true. But, as is the case in all paradoxes, the resolution of perspectives involves finding a perspective that

This is an important issue because all (or at least most) religions except Christianity hold/believe/teach that God is immanent/intimately present within the entirety of the created physical universe. This leads to an alienation of the believers in religions, which believe their religion is the only way, which is true of Christianity. Other religions believe there are many paths to truth and thus view Christianity as intolerant/closed/primitive in comparison to their expansive embrace of all religions as valid paths to God.

Which conception is true? Is God completely separate from the universe, or is He embedded intimately within it? The first piece of the puzzle is solved by accepting/realizing and interpreting verses that indicate the Bible acknowledges that God is immanent within the creation. If this is true, the next issue is postulating how God created a universe based upon a single consciousness while still allowing for the experience of separation, unique/self-only perspective, and a relationship between self and others.

I believe the solution to the problem of creating another consciousness besides God alone (a limited consciousness capable of recognizing boundaries defining self and others) lies in knowing how God created the universe. As per John 1, the Father and Son are identical but have a unique/separate existence. I think the Father created the Son by looking back at Himself. The nature given to Him by the Father (identical to Himself) and the perspective of the Son is His identity. The Father is the Son, but the Father has given the Son a unique perspective.

The Son was charged with creating all things in Heaven and Earth. The Son took counsel from the Father and did as the Father directed, but there was a degree of separation between them because of the distinction of perspective. The Father was still the only existent consciousness in the universe, but because the Father allowed the Son to have a choice in every moment and control the consciousness that He gave the Son, the Son was an autonomous being operating within the space of the Father’s consciousness.

The same method was used when the Son created the substrate of the creation and implemented the laws of physics. To implement the creation, the Son created innumerable Conscious Points. The Son declared each Conscious Point into existence by/from/in His mind/spirit. Thus, using the same method, the Father created the Son. The Son visualized/declared/spoke each Conscious Point into being and gave it a character, a set of capabilities it could execute. As in the case of the Father and Son, each Conscious Point was, in essence, the Son looking back at Himself and perceiving all other Conscious Points He created.

The aggregate actions of all Conscious Points, each following the rules of type,  distance, and motion, given to them by the Son, manifest the laws of physics. The Son created four types of Conscious Points (two electron-type Conscious Points and two quark-type Conscious Points), each with a different force-distance response to each other. The Son declared them all into existence, filled the universe with these points, and created a sufficient asymmetry in the number of positive and negative charges to allow mass formation.

The forces acting on each Conscious Point are computed, and the new position is assumed at the end of each Moment. The net result is motion, change, and evolution of the organization into a new configuration of Conscious Points. The Moment is the interval during which all Conscious Points in the universe simultaneously measure the relative distance and velocity of a specified number of Conscious Points surrounding each Conscious Point. They then process this data and compute how they should move at the end of the Moment. The aggregate effect is the formation and movement of particles, the carrying or transforming of kinetic energy, the holding or transforming of potential energy, and the transmission of disturbances through the Sea of Conscious Points as photons/EM waves.

Creating such a universe requires that each Conscious Point be aware only of its perspective. The Father creates the Son as a separate Consciousness, which begins individuation. The Son creating all of the Conscious Points as individual entities is the second iteration of creating individuated consciousness. The third iteration is the Son creating the human spirit. The fourth interaction in creating individuation may be the Son creating a generic animal spirit consciousness, which each species modifies based on its brain organization/ function.

This concept of consciousness having only an individual perspective is the key to its differentiation. By the Son giving consciousness to each point and not allowing each point to perceive the perspective of the other, the Conscious Points are given a single perspective and thus perceive themselves to be self and recognize others.

The Son is the source of all the Conscious Points. He has probably automated their generation and maintenance to make their continued generation effortless. He could focus on the perspectives of any Conscious Point, but His attention is probably on higher-level organizations of Conscious Points.

I postulate that any collection of Conscious Points can form a “Group Entity.” An example of a group entity would be any collection of mass, such as a planet, a mountain, a school, a town, an ethnic group, a team, a nation, a geographic entity, etc. The Group Entity is an ad hoc collection of Conscious Points. It is in the formation and perception of the group that the group entity becomes an active player. Such entities are called idols.

We do not see God everywhere and in everything because our perspective is naturally limited to the single perception associated with the spirit/perspective given to us by the Son. Because of having a single spirit perspective, we have a sense of individuation. This separation is so apparent to ordinary human consciousness that the idea of only one Consciousness populating the entire universe seems unfathomably absurd. Thus, by the Son allowing each spirit to perceive only one of His perspectives, He has created a separation between the conscious experiences of the spirits of men, animals, and the Conscious Points.

However, underlying all the specifics of how the Son created the universe from His mind and separated the spirits of men, the fact is that there is only one consciousness in the universe. That fact/perspective is so profoundly hidden that it is almost impossible to break through from human consciousness into God’s consciousness in any meaningful way.

The Father created the Son as a Point of Consciousness (with The Father’s characteristics). The Son has declared into existence all the Conscious Points (with the four characters of elementary types), the spirits of men (with the character of the Father and Son), animals (with the animal spirit), and plants (also with the animal spirit). The Son is the filter of what the Father sees. The Son only allows the Father to see the good portions of the creation. The Son is a filter for what the Father sees. The Son only allows men committed to the Godly/holy principles of goodness into the presence of the Father. This is why the Son is the way, the Truth, and the Life.

The Son created heaven on earth and walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden. But evil arose in man’s mind when he ate of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. Before that time, man’s heart was pure, unaware of the ways of being that violated God’s categorization of good and evil. The Father stands as the standard of goodness. The Son is aware of all that is good and evil, and he protects the Father from seeing the violations of His way. Morality was simple before man ate from the Tree; man only had to comply with one requirement, one prohibition.

Was it rebellion against God that opened man’s heart and mind to evil? Was there a spirit that invaded the hearts of men from the tree, which could enlighten/awaken men to the possibility of violating God’s way? Was it simply that man was confused by the possibilities of evil/prohibited action (murder, theft, perjury,  and adultery) and was unable to distinguish good from evil? Or were men opened to their animal lusts by taking in the tree’s spirit? Was it simply that the idea/concept of prohibition was present before the fall, but the specifics behind that prohibition were opaque?

The knowledge of good and evil was opened to man by his choice. God warned man against eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. But having been made aware of the possibilities of animal lusts, men were confronted at each moment with the choice of whether to obey the commands and His way or satisfy his lusts.

In this way, the Father remains pure, entirely without evil in His consciousness or vision. Evil exists because God has chosen a set of behaviors/actions/choices that He has defined as evil. The complete set of actions is available in the physical world because all possible configurations of mass and energy are available. The physical universe does not evaluate/label/judge the morality of any action. In the physical universe, everything is categorized as a “what’s so” and an “is what it is” fact.

Thus, evil arises because of God’s definition of evil. The Father has chosen to limit His vision and see only what is good. The Father remains spotless, undefiled, perfect, the only one who is good. Because the universe is filtered through the Son, the Father can separate Himself from the evil possibilities naturally occurring within the Son’s creation. Thus, the Father stays pure/undefiled and unchanging.  The Father is the very definition of Goodness.

The Father’s ability to see only goodness through the Son and man only seeing from the single perspective given to him resolves the issue of why we don’t see/know/perceive the oneness of all and have a consciousness of everything in creation, all the time. Yes, the universe is a single consciousness, but by a few commands and prohibitions, consciousness can be compartmentalized into the individual consciousnesses of the Son, man, animals, and plants.

The Son exercising the authority and power to create the creation gave the Father a degree of separation from the evil possibilities available in the creation. This is relevant to our discussion because this paradigm/model of creation explains how the oneness of God and the Creation are both rational/logical/reasonable paradigms and that they are based upon Biblical concepts.

Incorporating the concept/paradigm/model of God’s oneness into Christianity as an orthodox, accepted concept allows Christianity to participate in a nuanced discussion with theologians and followers of other world religions. To be blunt, the different world religions have incorrect ideas/conceptions/beliefs about the oneness of all consciousness.

The current worldview/theology/catechism of Christianity has mostly rejected the concept of the oneness of all consciousness, considering it a pagan/pantheistic doctrine. Denial or misunderstanding of such a fundamental fact about the universe places Christianity out of the mainstream of discussion with world religions.

If Christianity were to embrace its scriptural references and implications of the oneness of all consciousness, then it would be able to authoritatively reframe and sanctify Eastern religions’ seeking to reunite into the unity of all consciousness. When the concept of how the creation was created from God, from a single consciousness, a concept consistent with the Bible, it becomes evident that seeking to unify with the oneness of all consciousness is antithetical to the purpose for which God created the universe. It is fundamentally a rebellion against the structure of the universe that God intended to create.

When viewing the Bible through this lens, it becomes clear that the Oneness of all consciousness is a central concept around which the universe was constructed. Instructing men in the Truth about the universe, its origin, structure, and processes is profitable. With correct knowledge and facts about reality, people can make better choices.  The Bible reveals, by implication, the oneness of all consciousness as the universe in many verses. With this paradigm, we, as Christians, can retain our concept of the inerrancy of Biblical purity/inerrancy and appeal to the other world religions to correct their concept regarding uniting with the oneness of God and consciousness. The Biblically revealed path to unifying with the nature of God is to accept Christ as the only way into the presence of, and fellowship with the Father. The oneness of all consciousness is an implied concept in the Bible. When addressed in the context of the metaphysical considerations God faced when designing the creation, it becomes evident that God had no choice but to create the Son and give Him the authority to create all of creation. In this way, God can maintain absolute purity and remain untainted, not influenced by evil.

Such a doctrine is offensive to those who believe that such an interpretation of these verses implies a pantheistic view of God. The worship of other gods, the division of the spiritual realm into a battle of the gods, violates the Biblical precepts of placing other gods before/ahead of the One, the creator God. This command is reiterated and restated in Deuteronomy 6:4, the Shema, “Hear oh Israel the Lord our God, the Lord is one. ”

The Shema is a Hebrew word meaning “the call to listen.” It is a declaration of God’s oneness and an explicit prohibition against the conception of a pantheon of gods. Thus, the Shema reinforces/declares/affirms God’s unity and His indivisible identity. This concept distinguishes the Jewish faith from polytheistic beliefs. It is such a strong antagonistic declaration against the idea of the oneness of all consciousness that this concept is considered axiomatically false/heresy. This error must be corrected if Christianity is to make its full worldwide impact.

My search for truth as a yogi was my first exposure to the “oneness of God and creation” idea. This concept is considered pantheistic/panentheistic by many conventional/orthodox Christian theologians and laymen. Thus, a concept of God in which the universe and God are viewed as intimately connected in source and substance is a heretical theology to nearly all Christendom. The animus against what is considered a pantheistic/panentheistic conception of God and the universe is strong. To the Christian theologian, teaching this concept is a hallmark of being Eastern, pagan, unorthodox, a new ager, syncretistic, heretical…

The problem is that the Bible makes it clear that Christ is the only way to salvation.  This was what I was raised to believe as a child. However, as an intellectual, I am a person who can only function in a world that makes sense. I had to know the fundamental rules of cause and effect governing the world I was living in. The world is made of durable structures (mass and energy) and there are rules of interaction between the elements of this structure.

For me, high school (SHHS, science, college prep) and college (UCLA engineering) were also exercises of frustration. I wanted to know how the world worked fundamentally, but that wasn’t what I was taught. Instead, I was taught a high-level manipulation of concepts proposed as axiomatically true and existent (e.g., force/electromagnetic/strong/gravitational, mass/particles/charge/spin, energy/kinetic/potential, momentum, time, space, quanta/number/exclusion/entanglement, and relativity/time/space). I spent much of my time in school contemplating what was the underlying reality behind the macroscopic world of physical appearance. I had that realization in my 1987 vision, and it has proven to unify the concepts of the Bible with Science. It has given unity and simplicity to the various domains of science (fields, particles, quanta, relativity, and Newtonian).

I could not make sense of Christianity. What kind of world do we live in, where Jesus Christ dying for our sins could save us? How could this possibly be true? How could this make sense? I was missing something. I needed to understand the universe more deeply. I needed to know how things worked to think, judge, and evaluate properly to make good decisions.

I searched for another way. I saw an advertisement for a yoga class on the University of Hawaii bulletin board. When I attended my first Kundalini Yoga Class, I knew this was for me. I would do this and take it as far as I could. At the end of the trip, I knew it would not take me where I wanted to go, but it was worthwhile. It exposed me to the world religions. I understood the yogic path and Eastern religions from the inside. I put on a turban, chanted, meditated, did yoga, and read the Sikh holy book (Guru Granth Sahib – the Book of the Guru) for 2.5 hours every morning. I faded away. I left without incident or upset. I moved to Portland, leaving the LA Ashram, Yogi Bhajan, and the Sikh community behind.

People who oppose practicing yoga argue that the yogic worldview is based upon a pantheistic conception of God. They argue that if God was the substance of everything in Creation, then He was also the source of evil. They argue that this cannot be true because God, being all good/pure without any relationship with sin, makes such a theological conception inconsistent with Christian doctrine.

I left my childhood upbringing as a Christian to become a yogi because I could not understand what kind of world we must be living in where Jesus dying for our sins 2000 years ago could affect our salvation and forgive/pay the debt of our sins.

Six years as a yogi and studying around forty different religions did not give me any understanding of this question. But in 1987, in an altered state, I had a vision. I saw a symbolic representation of what I interpreted as representing the mechanics and structure of the universe. I saw how God may have constructed matter, energy, space, and time from His mind/consciousness/spirit. From this experience/realization, I saw how there could be a fundamental oneness of the creation. From that conception, I developed a theory of everything that incorporated and integrated the Biblical narrative with the physics of relativity, quantum mechanics, field theory, and particle theory. This miraculous personal revelation gave me a new perspective on the physical universe, God, relationships, purpose, and the context of the Bible. It allowed me to assign forces of cause-effect and rules of interaction to every interaction (whether Newtonian, modern physics, or interpersonal.) The remaining question is, “Is it True?” I shall continue to elaborate my Conscious Point Hypothesis/Theory of Absolutes and develop my conception of the sub-quantum universe, with its Conscious Point entities populating space and interacting according to rules of interactions given to it by God/the Son, when He created the universe.

Psalm 51:4 is one verse, among many, that supports my postulate of the fundamental Oneness of the universe as united by its origin in/from/by God’s mind. Several other verses support this postulate, the most prominent being, “In Him, we live and move and have our being.”

Considering the entirety of the Bible, Physics/Science, History, Psychology, Theology, etc., this insight is seen as the unifying theme of human knowledge and philosophy. With this paradigm, the purpose of life is illuminated. I have come to rely on the Bible as the definitive guide to morality. It is the story of God’s work to create life and bring His way into the willing governance of men’s hearts. The purpose of life is implied as being to love God, serve Him, and be served by Him.

The intersecting of multiple perspectives confirms the deeper meaning of this verse. God is the consciousness underlying all and the witness of all acts. As such, He feels everything and is closer than our breath, knowing all the hairs of our heads and loving each of us. The agreement with the totality of the Biblical perspective and the other domains of knowledge and human endeavor is a possible indicator of the validity of this insight/perspective/worldview. Given the universality of this revelation/insight/teaching in the world’s religions, including Christianity, I believe this perspective/insight/fact is likely true/actual/reality. I don’t think the concept of the oneness of all consciousness is merely the teaching of false religions or the delusion of a vision.

I use Psalm 51:4 as one of my cornerstones to illustrate and defend the concept of the universal oneness of God and all creation. I often heard this Oneness-of-God concept in my New Age/Eastern spiritual pilgrimage. I explored many different teachers, books, cults, and religions in my journey, but I could not understand it until I experienced it in my 1987 vision/awakening/enlightenment.

I believe my vision was a miracle, a divine gift that I was given because I wanted to know the truth so badly. This new perspective, seeing that God was alone in the beginning and that He created the Son as His duplicate and authorized Him to create all things that were created, was the turning point of my life.

I saw and understood how Christianity could be True from that seed vision. I understood the symbolism of that vision because it connected and put into perspective the many religions and teachings I had explored. This concept seemed universal—a central principle of every religion.

I don’t think the Oneness of All is a commonly recognized concept in Christianity. And I don’t believe its depth, reality, or significance is recognized even in the religions that teach and pursue it as a central tenant. Nevertheless, the implications of this concept allowed a new understanding of the difficult-to-rationalize concepts in the Bible, namely, Jesus’ declaration that the Father and I are one. I saw how the other teachings of Christianity were tertiary; they were implied as necessary complications associated with the unity of all consciousness. For example, the unjustified death of Jesus Christ and his subsequent resurrection indicated His lawful supremacy of authority in this world. Death cannot hold a man who does not sin against God.

Jesus Christ proved it was possible to conquer Satan by resisting his temptations and living a sinless life. By being murdered by the henchman of Satan and resurrecting from the dead, Jesus proved that death could not hold a sinless man. He declared that His spilled blood was a gift that all could use as an effective commutation of a death sentence for sin.  In the spiritual realm, His blood, which Satan unjustly spilled, could be used for the forgiveness of sin.

That fact/insight/realization of the oneness of all consciousness allowed me to see the truth of Christianity, a religion I left to explore other faiths. I left because I could not understand how the concepts, premises, and foundation of Christianity could be rationalized in terms of the structure of the laws of the physical universe and a philosophical connection with purpose and cause-effect. But seeing the oneness of God and the creation in so many different religions, and seeing hints of it illustrated and represented within Biblical scriptures, and connecting this concept to create a conception of the physical universe that connected God with the physics, biology, and purpose, allowed me to adopt its precepts and living practice of Biblical Christianity with full ardor and without reservation.

It was in this way that I benefited. I saw that conceiving God as immanent within the creation and seeing the commonality between Christianity and the other non-Christian world religions was not demon worship. I saw a unifying truth that allowed me to elevate my conception of Christianity from the realm of ad hoc cultural myth or metaphor to the realm of a religion that included the profound factual nature of the universe into the fabric of its theological conceptions.

I had seen a fact about that universe in other world religions, and I had seen it dramatized in a vision personalized to meet my need for a conceptualized illustration of function. I am defending and rationalizing the benefits of studying other world religions. I saw an invisible truth previously hidden within the Biblical text and not included in the canon of Christianity. The truth of the oneness of consciousness was in the Biblical text, but I could not see it. It was likewise invisible to the majority of theologians and followers of Christ. Since that time, I have attempted to defend my thesis against the accusation of endorsing and teaching a heretical, polytheistic gospel of demon worship.

Regarding other elements of faith, I believe that every religion teaches many elements of Godly morality, and I believe many practitioners believe they are Worshiping the one true God. Each should be applauded for the Godliness that they teach and practice and their intent to worship God.

I do not think that any religion except those that teach Jesus Christ as the only way leads to salvation/forgiveness of sin/purification of a person’s soul to be in the presence of the Father. I believe only Christianity offers that possibility/way.

As Christians witness to other world religions’ followers, we should emphasize their religion’s truths/common beliefs and then examine the differences. By Christianity acknowledging the Oneness of God in the creation, a commonality has been established that need not be criticized. The sincerity of the search for truth in all religions should be acknowledged. With this posture, I believe we will be more effective in witnessing to the unbelievers and followers of other religions who are sincerely seeking to worship God. I think this was Paul’s message in Acts 17:22-23.

Many would recognize the truth in the words/teachings hidden in the Bible if they 1) deeply understood the universe’s structure, 2) could rationalize its concepts and see how they correspond with reality, and 3) see that its teaching/wisdom/worldview leads to a good life. I believe that Christianity’s disagreement with the teachings of the world religions regarding the Oneness of God and the Creation is misguided. We should agree with world religions on this issue and focus on correcting their errors in worshipping other gods.

The God of the Bible is the only true God. Whether they worship a demon or a lesser god is unknown, but we do know that there is only one way to the Father: through Jesus Christ. Other religions may desire to reach/worship/follow the one True God, but if they are following another god by mistake, or if their method of reaching God is mistaken, they will not reach the God they desire to worship and serve. The existence of the pantheon of other gods probably does exist, but only the one True God should be worshipped.

All other gods may be demons since they do not teach the way of Jesus Christ. We are in error to the extent that we worship any other god above the One True God. The first Commandment, to have no other gods before God, does not state that there are no other gods. Instead, it says only that other gods should not be worshipped.

My experience of participating in many religions was that every religion is populated by sincere people seeking truth and trying to live the best way possible. However, sincerity and good intentions are not determinants of truth. I was able to be a Christian when I saw and understood 1) that the Bible acknowledged the concept of the immanence of God in the creation, 2) that the Son was of the same character/essence as the Father because of being declared into existence by Him, 3) that the Son created all the Conscious Points of the creation by declaring them into existence by the same method that He was created, and 4) the moral and theological implications of this foundational structure of creation.

I realize that my Conscious Point Hypothesis/Theory of Absolutes postulates require more study and validation before they can be used as dependable tools for witnessing. My intended audience for this theory in its mature form is the scientifically literate atheist. I believe these are the thought leaders, the priests of the religion of Scientism and Secular Atheism. I intend to continue developing my postulates to the point where they will withstand the most critical scientific scrutiny. Nevertheless, even with the above minimal development of the concepts, I think you will agree that when viewed through the lens of the Bible alone, disregarding my scientific postulates about how and why God is immanent, the Bible has sufficient clearly articulated verses to cast doubts on the postulate that God is not immanent.

The unifying factor that allowed me to divine the purpose of life was the conception/model/postulate that everything, both good and evil, the spiritual and physical universe, arose from God. In my conception of God’s evolution/creation of the earth, I believe He was alone before He began the creation. The Bible is mute on this subject, so we have no scriptural authority upon which to base such a presumption.

But, using the logic of the physical universe, it does not make sense that God created the universe from a storehouse of matter or spiritual substance if He was alone before the creation of the universe. If matter was available from another source besides Himself in the pre-creation space, who created it? Did another God create it? Who are these other gods/creators that created evil if He did not make it, or give authority to another God-like creator to create the polarities of good and evil? Declaring into existence the substrate from which the physical world arose (the Conscious Points) is the only rational explanation I can postulate.

There will still be those who find the above postulate repugnant because it 1) states that God is immanent within the creation, which is like Hinduism, which ascribes all the various functions of deity to different gods, which is polytheism, which the First Commandment expressly prohibits, or 2) posits that God cannot be within the universe, because God is only good/perfect, and therefore cannot be immanent within a physical universe that is populated with evil spirits, and people who embrace/practice evil, or 3) some other implication of the above postulate that seems to contradict a particular doctrine of your denomination. If such objections remain, please comment on this post and email me at drthomas@theoryofabsolutes.com.

These considerations about the limitations God faced as initial conditions and requirements for the creation He was building make me believe that there was no other source of building materials besides Himself.

Another significant consideration for me was the issue of salvation, atonement, and substitutionary sacrifice. These issues were of such importance to me that I left the very strong/radically saved/fanatical devotion to the faith of my childhood, youth, and young adulthood to explore other religions. I am a man of reason. To understand something requires a full elaboration of the substance, process, and laws governing cause-effect. These were missing. To be a Christian, as an adult, I was asked to accept Christianity with a childlike, not-understanding why, faith.

I believe I was named Thomas for a reason. I doubt everything. I don’t consider any proposition believable, worthy of belief, or acceptance until all the elements of proof are present. I see no reason to extend my faith to endorse and place my eternal destiny in a religion that offers no understandable explanation. I know those who hear and believe are blessed, but I was not blessed with this level of faith. I had to put my hands in the nail scared hands to believe.

I feel like the most blessed person to have been given what I consider to be a miraculous vision that gave me the clues, the missing information needed to derive the backstory on how God created the creation in the detail I needed so that I could have faith. I do have faith about the size of a mustard seed. I have a little. I don’t even consider myself a believer – I know it’s true. I only have enough faith to say, “If the Bible is literally true, and if the universe was built with these methods and for these reasons, then this religion, this understanding of God, is sufficiently rational and self-consistent that I am willing to trust eternal soul to follow and promoting it with my whole being.”

Before I started my spiritual pilgrimage, I didn’t see any possibility of rationalizing God by using the Bible as my sourcebook of explanations for how God created the universe. Given what I knew and saw of the universe, I could not rationalize how Jesus Christ could die 2000 years ago, and His blood and death would be effective in washing away my sins. I did not see how belief in His resurrection would be effective in saving my soul.

So, I took an alternate route. The path of yoga, the path of directly experiencing God, seemed to be a more certain/verifiable method of ensuring my path was, in fact, True. If I could not rationalize the system, I was surrendering my volition to someone else. I could only do that if I trusted their experience or belief sufficiently validated that they were on the true path to God.

Until I understood the rationalization of why a path to God was correct and effective (whether the path of Christ or the path of yoga), I was relying on other people’s valuation. Either way, I was only following people. It seemed like everyone was convinced that their way was the authentic/best/right way to God. One billion people each follow Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, and Hinduism. Listening to the testimony of the followers of each religion, reading their respective sacred texts, or participating in each of them seems unlikely to be definitive. There are chauvinistic religions that believe their religion is the best/only way (Jehovah’s Witness, Mormons, Christians, Islam…). There are Eastern/New Age religions that declare that “All paths lead to the same truth,” so there was no need to discriminate or choose; just dig and keep digging in the spiritual garden where you are planted, and you will eventually get there.

As a young adult, I was faced with the prospect of blindly following Christianity and not knowing if it would ever produce fruit. Instead of doing the same thing, with no possible change in sight, I did something different. I decided to be a yogi and see if meditating, chanting, doing asanas/poses, and reading the Guru Granth Sahib would end my karma, release me from the cycle of birth and death, and give me an experience of union with God. This sounded like a more sure method of finding God than just believing in Jesus. At least the yogic path was one where I would know I had experienced God. So, I chose the path of works. I decided to do a method that gurus and yogis said would give me a magical/transcendent personal experience. At least I would know whether it worked or not. ***

more satisfactory understanding of our relationship to god. ave me a rationalization for the Biblical concept of salvation and how the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ were effective for salvation. It allowed me to rationalize why His death was necessary for resolving the separation between God and man. It answered the myriad of questions about life that cannot be answered without a deep philosophical and reality-based understanding of the spiritual-physical foundations of the universe.

Of course, the belief in a God who is immanent within the creation is not a sufficiently granular concept to rationalize all of science, philosophy, theology, and psychology. In fact, without the guiding influence of God’s revelation (the Bible), we can use this fact, the immanence of God, to justify worshipping trees, nature, statues, etc. It is this concept that we, as Christians, should stand against.

It is unnecessary to stand against the concept of God as immanent as a Christian; the Bible has sufficient implications of its factuality to accept it as a fact of nature/God’s creation. The first Commandment is even more meaningful when we recognize that God is in everything. A natural temptation must be resisted when we see that God is in some way present in everything in the creation. It is this temptation we must resist. Our love and singular worship of God is even more meaningful and love-expressing when we recognize there truly are aspects of Him within the creation. When we see divinity everywhere, we must resist the temptation to worship a portion of Him. It is His fullness/His personhood/His beauty, perfection, and love that we must worship. It is possible to look at the various aspects of creation and worship the gods of nature, the elements of His creation. Yes, He created them, and they are real, but they should not be worshipped. In essence, He has created the creation with tests embedded within it that challenge people, that test people to worship gods other than Him. In this way, man’s love is tested/challenged. That is why he gave the First Commandment. There truly are other gods, they are real, and they can be worshipped, but God warns us to love only Him. When we see the immanence of God in a Christian/Biblical context, we are led to a reverence for all of life, people, the earth, and nature. Every moment reminds us of His majesty. We worship the creator, not the aspects of the creation. We worship the fullness of who He is as author/creator of life, not the works of His hands and the spirits that occupy, influence, and administer the creation.

This argument about whether the non-Christian world religions are demonic because they believe that God is immanent is a distraction from the real issue. The real question is how should we live and establish a proper relationship with God. We should focus our discussions between religions on what is True regarding the purpose of life and how to live a life that pleases God. I believe there is only one way to the Father: accepting the sacrificial offering of Jesus Christ for our sins and making Him the Lord of our lives. More specifically, giving Him the Lordship of our lives means adopting His moral code, His way of being, and listening to the Holy Spirit (His spiritual representative of the Son, which guides us in all righteousness).

Christianity, as a formal belief structure and people taking the Good News of Christ’s salvation, should be taking this doctrine/distinction, this unique revelation of the nature of God’s creation into the world. I believe accepting the oneness of God and the creation in at least the causal/creative/initiatory sense of God as the source of all creation is important. The gap between Christianity and other world religions is narrowed by acknowledging that God is immanent in the creation. At that point, the debate is about doctrinal issues, about our proper relationship with God. When Christianity acknowledges that God is the source of all, we are on a common ground for examining the rationality of morality as taught by Christ and embodied within His being. The immanence of God is such a repeating theme in all religions, including Christianity, throughout millennia and cultures that this is likely a universal underlying truth about nature and the creation.

Some people have come to faith based on the belief that all other religions are incomplete and demonic because they believe in the immanence of God in all creation. In Mike Shreve’s pamphlet, “Seven Reasons I No Longer Practice Yoga.” he makes the following points, to which I respond under each point:

• 1. Yoga is based on Eastern religious beliefs that contradict Judeo-Christian teachings. Hinduism and Eastern religions believe in concepts such as prana, chakras, and kundalini.
  • I believe the Bible is True because sincerely living its precepts produces a better/higher-quality life for the individual.
  • I believe that when people practice Christianity as a reflection of the morality/character of Jesus Christ, there will be world peace. Until then, there will be significant strife.
  • The Bible’s historicity has been validated to a great extent by archaeology and extra-Biblical texts.
  • The poetic descriptions of the physical universe are consistent with a universe as conceived in my Theory of Absolutes/Conscious Point Hypothesis.
  • The Yogic concept of the unity of all creation, the illusion of reality, is consistent with the duality of good and evil. The Bible is not a comprehensive exposition of all metaphysical or physical concepts.
• 2. Yoga aims to achieve union with Brahman, the Hindu concept of the universal oneness of God.
  • In my Conscious Point Hypothesis, I postulate that God the Father was alone in the beginning. There was no one else. He was alone. He could not make the universe from a substance other than Himself. As the Father’s first and only creation, He declared the Son into existence.
  • Given that there were no other spirits or substances available to create the physical or spiritual universe, the Father created the Son from His mind/consciousness/spirit as a duplicate of Himself. Hence, Jesus said, “The Father and I are one.”
  • The Father gave the Son the authority to create all things. The Father and Son were sufficiently separated as unique identities so that the Father could maintain His purity/separation from evil when the Son created the creation. The Son either created evil spirits or good spirits/angels that rebelled and chose to oppose God and His way. Either way, evil exists, and the Son created the substance from which evil arose.
  • The Son created the creation by declaring innumerable Conscious Points into existence. Each Conscious Point is conscious of its source and all other Conscious Points. He gave them independence and rules to follow to carry and be the substance of creation. He densely filled the universe with Conscious Points of four types, from which he created all matter. He filled all space with Conscious Points, giving mass and photons a medium to transit. He retained ultimate authority over their placement, giving Him the right and power to form the universe. With this authority, he created miracles and life in all forms. He evolved and adapted plants and animals to their environment over the ages. And he gave man His light, His spirit, His essence is the light of life that animates men.
• 3. Practices like chanting “Om” invoke Hindu gods.
  • Chanting may be meaningless/thoughtless repetition, which is not profitable.
  • Or, chanting may resonate with spirits and allow them to enter and influence one’s life.
  • Worshipping other gods violates the first commandment.
  • These other gods may be demons, or they may be principalities of nature.
  • We should pray, dwell on what is good and positive, and emulate His character in our relationships.
  • We should meditate and be still and know that He is God.
• 4. Yoga postures have symbolic spiritual meanings relating to Hindu deities.
  • God has commanded us to have no other Gods before Him.
  • Imitating the postures of earth spirits may resonate with those spirits and allow them to enter and influence us. Having said this, intent is of great importance. Is the asana, the posture/pose taken as part of a ceremony, as a ritual dedicated to that earth spirit/god/power or other lifeform? We can place our posture in any position, and if we are committed to simply moving our body into various poses, and there is no openness to possession, there is little chance of being possessed.
• 5. The goal of yoga is to realize one’s divinity, to unite with the oneness of Brahman, the large face of God.
  • While we are a part of the divine (just as everything is), we are not God.  As Jesus said, “We are gods.” We are not God. Uniting with God in the complete, ego-dissolving sense is to destroy the separation that was a cornerstone of God’s creation. This type of yogic union is unholy and opposes God’s plan for man as a separate being who chooses to love Him, and whom He loves.
  • Dissolving the barrier between God and man makes it impossible for God to be in the love relationship He created us for. Being separate from God is a very important aspect of holiness.
  • The other important and more conventional aspect of holiness is choosing to be separate from evil.
  • The Word/The Son is the light of men. We were made in His image. We are gods, but we are not God.
  • God is the source and substance of everything. We cannot help but worship Him in every moment, situation, and location when we recognize His immanence. Our rational understanding and acceptance of Him as the Lord of the universe by scientists and skeptics can more readily be accepted when we can rationalize God as the source and substance underlying subatomic particles.
  • However, uniting in God’s oneness, like a drop of water in the ocean, is the opposite of relationship and the purpose of creation.
  • He is holy and has declared Himself separate from evil/sin.
  • This is the miracle of creation: to create an observer and observed, a subject and object, a seer and the seen, from a starting point where there was only God and no other and no thing. God created the entire creation from His oneness. The Father distanced Himself from evil by delegating the Son’s authority/duty to create physical reality, with its polarities of good and evil. Thus, the Son, who is also God but separate in a significant/God-declared way, created the world where evil exists. The Father desires to be in a relationship with other spirits who have free agency. The process of living in the creation is to battle evil, which pulls us to worship other gods and engage in their morality. His plan, his creation of the creation, required that His Son be sacrificed to bring people into a purified relationship with Him. We can only marvel at the magnificence of our God, who was able to create significance and meaning from a single consciousness. The Father arose from nothing or existed for eternity, but this is an insoluble mystery. But assuming God/the Father’s existence, He created the entire creation, and without any substance or spirit from any place other than His own being. It is by this method that we can rationalize God’s immanence and His separation from evil. God created the creation from His being, but He established strong barriers between Himself and the Son. This allowed Him to be of the same fundamental substance that carried evil but not be overtaken or sullied by the evil spiritual entities that must exist in a world where evil exists.
  • Man has a fallen nature, which can only be redeemed through Christ. We cannot short-circuit entry into the divine realm by meditating, chanting, working off karma, devotion to other gods, serving gurus, or following the teachings of men.
  • We are to unite with God in the sense of uniting with His Way. His Way is living His principles of loving neighbor as self and loving God. We love God by following His Word, which is making Jesus Christ the Lord of our lives, feeding on the Word (the revealed Word of God), and listening to the speaking of the Holy Spirit/that still small voice of conscience.
• 6. The spiritual experiences and energy experienced by mastering the yogic disciplines are deceptions produced by demonic powers rather than the miracles produced by God’s grace and prayer.
  • When we chant words, meditate on the names of gods, do positions and movements, or devote our life energy to channeling prana, life energy, this is a trick, not actual spiritual growth. The purpose of life is to be in a relationship with God and to love Him. In this life, we do that by choosing to love His way, do His works, and resist the temptation of the world/other gods.
• 7. Yoga is a type of New Age spirituality infiltrating Western culture.
  • Yoga/Hinduism is a path of works with a slightly different moral code than Biblical Christianity. The most pronounced difference between yogic and Christ-centered morality is the belief that the purpose of life is to get out of life.
  • The popularity of yoga may be its promise of enlightenment and liberation from the endless cycle of karma through various practices. But such a conception misses the point of life. The end/purpose/reason for life is a relationship with God. This relationship is produced when we love God, our neighbor, and ourselves. The Father wants us to love each other because He feels and enjoys the sensation of loving each other. When we do so, the Father and Son dwell with us. There is a separation, even though there is unity in God. The struggle/challenge of life is to unite with His character/way of being. That is the holy yoga. That union is what we are called to do, not the union of dissolving back into Him or the union of breaking through the spiritual barriers He erected to experience a relationship between independent/free will beings.
  • Jesus said, “I am the way, the Truth, and the life, and no man cometh unto the Father but by me.” Indeed, it is impossible to come into the Father’s presence without covering our evil/imperfections with the blood/sacrifice/atonement of Jesus Christ.
  • Living a moral life is excellent and necessary. Even so, it is impossible to be good/pure/holy enough to enter God’s presence by one’s efforts. Likewise, God does not recognize or authorize entrance into his presence through yogic/Eastern works (chanting, meditating, breathing, eating, serving, worshipping, rituals, symbols, or magic).
  • We can only enter into God’s presence by the approval of the Son/Jesus Christ. He was the sacrificial lamb. He was guiltless/innocent/pure and was murdered by Satan without a legal warrant for His death. His blood and death were unclaimed/unused to pay His debt of sin, as he was guiltless. That credit can pay the debt of blood and death that we owe.
  • We must willingly give Him our lives to appropriate His grace, His gift of forgiveness, and reconciliation with the Father. With total commitment to His Way and submission to His will, the debt is canceled; we are seen by the Father as pure by the filter/cleansing of the Son. We are creations of the Son, He is the light of men, and He looks through the Son to see us. If the Son has authorized us, we are cleansed and may enter into God’s presence. The advocacy of the Son is our covering and cleansing. Forgiveness and reconciliation with the Father cannot be purchased with money or work. The debt is paid only by giving him our entire being. As we make Him Lord of our lives, living His Way, we are born again with a desire and commitment to live a life pleasing to the Father.

Objection to Yoga because of its Roots in Hinduism

Yoga has its origins in ancient Indian spiritual traditions, most prominently Hinduism. The word “yoga” comes from the Sanskrit word meaning “to yoke” or “join,” reflecting the goal of uniting one’s individual consciousness with the divine Brahman (the vastness of all consciousness). The earliest foundations of yoga are found in Hindu scriptures such as the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. Here, the philosophy and practices of yoga were developed as part of a broader spiritual system aimed at liberating one from the obligations of karma and the endless cycle of rebirth.

Core concepts in yoga, such as prana, chakras, kundalini, and mantra meditation, all have roots in Hindu cosmology and theory. They may reflect an aspect of reality, and manipulating these forces, substances, and processes may have spiritual effects. However, in Judeo-Christian theology, such practices will not bring a person into the intimate fellowship relationship with the Father offered by following the way of Christ Jesus. The ultimate aim of yoga is to achieve samadhi, or absorption into Brahman, the impersonal supreme reality of Hinduism. This is done through physical, mental, and spiritual disciplines designed to control the subtle energies of the body and quiet the fluctuations of the mind.

The spiritual path to God-realization in Hinduism is different from the way revealed in the Bible. The yogi’s absorption into the oneness of the Brahman is not about bringing the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. The method may be similar in that part of the teachings of Hinduism/yogic life may include excellent moral advice about living, staying healthy, having good family relationships, and respecting the laws of God and government. But, at its core, Hinduism aims to reunite with Brahman, which is the opposite of the Christian path. The way of Jesus Christ is to remain separate but holy. The Christian path is to unite with God by adopting His rules/the way exemplified and personified by Jesus Christ.

Contradictions of yogic practice with Judeo-Christian Teachings, as per the pamphlet “Seven Reasons Why I Don’t Practice Yoga” by Mike Shreve

The Eastern religious underpinnings of yoga contradict core tenets of Judeo-Christian theology on several fronts:

• Traditional Judeo-Christian teachings espouse belief in a personal, transcendent creator God, not an impersonal pantheistic divine essence as in Hinduism. Union with this personal God comes through faith and grace, not individual mystical effort.
  • I agree that the God of the Bible is a loving, caring Father God who created the world because He wanted to be in a relationship with the souls He created and gave free will to.
  • I believe God the Father is, in essence and lineage, the source of all substance. To this extent, He, through the Son, is the source of all. We live in a universe populated by many gods, but He is the source of them all.
• Judeo-Christian scriptures do not teach concepts like karma, reincarnation, chakras, prana, and kundalini that assume a cyclical rebirth process and energy body that can be manipulated to end the cycle of death and rebirth.
  • I do not believe there is a cycle of birth and death. I believe the Bible teaches that there is only one birth and death, and then the judgment.
  • Karma is similar to sowing and reaping, and sinning and paying the consequences.
  • In Hinduism, prana is the life energy of the breath. Science has not detected another life force besides oxygen’s chemical effect of accepting electrons in producing energy as ATP. If there is another life force, such a fact would not be evil or to worship or acknowledge evil. If it is a fact, it’s just a fact. If it exists, it is just part of God’s creation. There is nothing evil, demonic, or Satanic about the Eastern concepts of prana, kundalini, or chakras. Either they exist, or they do not. If they do exist and they are worshipped or take the focus off of living a good life, then to that extent, they hinder our proper relationship with God. If they exist and are used as facts, just like any other anatomical reality, they are just as valuable/useful/helpful in living life well as any other fact. Things must be dealt with in their proper context.
• Yoga aims to unite with the Brahman (the oneness of God and creation) by various methods to end the cycle of death and rebirth.
  • This is not the Judeo-Christian method of uniting with God. The natural man has the instincts and drives of the animal kingdom. He is driven to survive, reproduce, satisfy hunger, avoid pain, seek pleasure, etc. Man must choose to bring these drives under control to behave in a Godly way in every circumstance. There is a time and place to satisfy every animal instinct in a Godly way, but desire tempts men to choose sin instead of Godliness.
  • The transformation of a man’s animal desires is possible. Transformation of the heart, soul, and mind may include: 1) asking and being called (prayer, study…), 2)  The transformation includes knowing God’s way (feeding on the Word), 3) Committing to live with Jesus Christ as Lord,  (honoring His Way as revealed in Scripture), 4) Listening to the leading of the holy spirit (prayer, fasting, meditating on the words of the Bible), 5) Accepting His resurrection as demonstrating the authentic/real and effective (the power that raised Jesus from the dead has the power to transforms a man’s man’s heart). By transforming his heart, a man can choose a life pleasing to God.
  • But by default, by birth, man’s nature is sinful/unpleasing to God. We can never be holy or perfect enough in attempts to be holy to be worthy of being in God’s presence. We can only be saved by grace. But that grace comes by complete submission to Jesus Christ as our Lord. Only then does He become our Savior.
  • The Bible teaches that humanity is distinct from the divine, and we will never unite with the Oneness of God and the creation, nor is such a unity desirable. This oneness is factual/real and true, as everything is formed from the substance of God’s spirit/mind. However, reuniting with this primal essence is not an appropriate life or spiritual endeavor goal.
  • God created man and creation to be separate and in a relationship with Him.
  • God created man perfectly, but there was no , but when man sinned in the garden,
  • with the desire for sin in the hope that man would choose to love Him. The way of man showing his love of God is to follow His Way. God created the world to satisfy His desire for love. God is love. We are dependent upon God for our redemption. In one sense, everything is divine because all is from Him. In Him, we live, move, and have our being.
  • God has created strong barriers between His divinity and our humanity. Methods, such as yoga, can circumvent His spiritual defenses. But those who enter His realm through methods other than the authorized method, which is submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, will be expelled. The consequences of unauthorized methods of entry into the spiritual realm are seen in John 10:1 and Matthew 7:21-23.

For these core philosophical and theological reasons, yoga’s spiritual foundations are not compatible with Judeo-Christian doctrines.

• The physical aspects of yoga may not be problematic. However, when attending yoga classes, the Eastern worldview is typically used to explain the benefits of yoga. Prayers and chanting are often used, and familiarity with Eastern religion is gained through exposure to a non-threatening, pleasant, and growthful physical, emotional, and mental experience.
• Those attending yoga classes will most likely hear only the Eastern/Hindu/yogic theory of God and the journey to spiritual freedom through chanting, meditation, yogic asanas, and spiritual theory. With such seeds planted and without a competing/fair/rational comparison of the Christian path, the recreational/fitness/spiritually exploring yogi risks being enrolled in a yogic lifestyle, belief system, and membership in a yogic cult or Eastern religion.
• The concept of the Oneness of God and creation and the promise of stopping the endless cycle of births and deaths is seductive. When life seems painful or pointless, the goal of leaving life and reuniting with God’s bliss can seem seductive.

The promise of yoga classes/practice/mastery is perfecting of focus and mastery of life, uniting with the spirits of the poses, becoming conscious of the illusion of Maya/reality/the physical world, vibrating your chakras with sounds to open up psychic abilities, meditating on the silence/stillness to develop the siddhis/powers, the enlightenment of seeing/knowing/being in the oneness, liberation from the pull of karma and the cycle of births and deaths, and entering the bliss of unity with God.

• The casual fitness/recreational yogi risks adopting these goals and benefits in an environment where there is typically not a fair/in-depth comparison with the Biblical worldview. A yoga instructor may declare the superiority of the Eastern/Yogic path, claiming the Church has corrupted the Bible to subject the masses to slavery. At the very least, a complete discussion of the path of other religions is not undertaken in yoga classes or after joining the Ashram. It is for this reason that it is best to avoid participating in yoga or studying Eastern religion.

But having said that we should not attend yoga classes, I did not follow that advice, and followed Yogi Bhajan for several years. I didn’t get enlightenment or liberation from anything. The guru asked me for all of my money, and I gave it to him. I got married and divorced while in 3HO. I worked in one of the “family businesses.” I saw inconsistencies in how the yogi acted, the advice he gave, and his theories of God and the universe. I decided that I could not trust him to lead me to enlightenment. Later, I read a book by Premka Kaur (Pamela Dyson), his most trusted disciple and secretary, which contained a complete expose of her experience with him in her book, “White Bird in a Golden Cage.” All was not as it seemed. But does the failure of one guru damn all gurus? No, it does not. We must look deeper than just the failures of a single man to provide a compelling case for why not to follow the path of Eastern religions and yogic practices.

• In a strange turn of events and personal changes, I became a Christian, at least in part because of what I had learned from Eastern religions and my yogic practice. I intensely studied and lived the life of a yogi to the fullest extent possible within the structure of a householder group.
• Because of my exposure to the Yogi’s teachings and many other religions after leaving that group, I was introduced to the concepts of “the Oneness of God and all creation.” Likewise, I heard numerous times that “all spiritual paths lead to the same truth.” Both memes/slogans made sense as literally true/accurately describing the spiritual path to God. Thus, I placed as a requirement for a true religion would satisfy these criteria.
• The maxim declaring that all paths lead to the same truth was satisfied by Christianity when I realized that two quotes by Jesus made two opposing/mutually exclusive declarations. 1) All who are not against me are with me, and 2) all who are not with me are against me. In looking for a resolution to this paradox, I realized that all spiritual paths seeking to know God are going toward the same truth, but in the end, there is only one Truth.
• The Bible declares that Jesus Christ is the truth and the way, and no man comes to the Father except through Him. If this is True, and I believe it is, following other spiritual paths without comparing them to the Truth of Jesus’s life and His direction as Lord and creator will put the spiritual seeker at risk of being distracted by disciplines that cannot restore our love-relationship with God in the only way that He has authorized.

 

Summary Essay:
“Divine Singularity: A Theological Analysis of Psalm 51:4’s Implications for Divine-Human Relations”

Abstract:
This scholarly analysis examines the theological implications of Psalm 51:4’s declaration “Against You, You only, have I sinned” within the context of divine-human relations and universal consciousness. Through examination of scriptural evidence and comparative religious analysis, this paper presents an argument for understanding God’s omnipresence as fundamental to the nature of sin and consciousness.

Introduction:
The concept of sin’s relationship to divine consciousness presents a complex theological question, particularly when examining David’s declaration in Psalm 51:4 that his sin was against God alone. This statement appears to transcend traditional interpretations of sin as primarily interpersonal transgression, suggesting a more fundamental relationship between divine consciousness and human action instead.

Theoretical Framework:
The traditional interpretation of sin typically focuses on its horizontal dimension – the harm caused to other humans – while acknowledging a vertical dimension regarding divine disapproval. However, Psalm 51:4 suggests a more radical understanding: all sin is fundamentally and exclusively against God. This perspective aligns with Acts 17:28’s assertion that “in Him we live and move and have our being,” suggesting a more comprehensive divine immanence than commonly recognized in traditional theological frameworks.

The Conscious Point Hypothesis: A Theoretical Framework for Divine Ontology

Theoretical Foundation:
The Conscious Point Hypothesis (CPH) presents a novel theological-philosophical framework for understanding divine creation and consciousness. This hypothesis posits a fundamental ontological structure wherein God the Father, as the primary consciousness, generated all of reality through discrete conscious points, with the Son as the first emanation.

Methodological Analysis:
The CPH proposes the following sequential ontological development:

Prima Facie State
Initial condition: God the Father existing as singular consciousness
Absence of external substance or alternative consciousness
Complete ontological solitude

Primary Creation Event
Generation of the Son as divine duplicate
Establishment of first conscious differentiation
Maintenance of essential unity (“the Father and I are one”)

Secondary Creation Phase
Son’s generation of innumerable Conscious Points
Implementation of governing principles for these points
Formation of physical reality through point manipulation

Theoretical Implications:

Metaphysical Structure
Reality as fundamentally conscious rather than material
Physical phenomena as expressions of conscious point interactions
Universal divine immanence while maintaining transcendence

Theological Consistency
The hypothesis provides potential resolution for several theological challenges:
The unity and distinction within the Trinity
The mechanism of divine omnipresence
The relationship between spiritual and physical reality

Phenomenological Consequences
Matter as derivative of consciousness rather than fundamental
Miracles as conscious point reorganization
Divine sovereignty over physical laws while maintaining their consistency

Critical Analysis:

The CPH presents several advantages:
Offers a coherent framework for understanding divine creation ex nihilo
Provides mechanism for divine-physical interaction
Maintains biblical consistency while engaging modern philosophical questions

However, certain challenges remain:
Empirical verification difficulties
Questions of conscious point individuation
Relationship to quantum mechanics and modern physics

This hypothesis represents an attempt to bridge traditional theology with contemporary philosophical questions about consciousness and reality’s fundamental nature. Further research might explore its implications for:

Quantum theology
Mind-body relationship
Divine action in physical systems
Free will and determinism

 

God is Everywhere
By Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
11/13/2024

I recently read an essay by Pastor Mike Shreve about why he stopped practicing yoga. It made me think about Psalm 51:4, which says “Against you, you only, have I sinned.” This verse means that all sins are against God.

To me, this verse shows that God is everywhere. When we sin against others, we are also sinning against God who is present in them and experiencing our acts. This view is very different from the normal idea of God as a judge who is far away. But I think it fits with my own experience of seeing how everything is connected to God, who is intimately and always present in everything, feelings, seeing, hearing life at its deepest level.

In 1987, I had a vision where I understood how God could have made the whole universe out of His own spirit. This helped me see that everything is one with God at the deepest level. I heard this oneness taught in many religions before I became Christian. But only after my vision could I fully embrace Christianity, and that because I saw how the Bible was consistent with this concept, and it explained how all other religions were speaking about the same truth, but did not extend it to the singular truth at the top of the mountain, where there is only one Truth. I believe this truth is embodied in the character of the Son of God, Jesus Christ. It is when we make Him Lord of our lives, that we attempt to emulate His character.

The oneness of God is hinted at in Bible verses like “in Him we live and move and have our being.” When you look at all human knowledge – science, psychology, and the world religions – we see evidence that God is the source of everything. And with some extrapolation and interpretation of  the implication of Bible verses we can reasonably postulate that the purpose of life is to love God and be loved by Him.

Most (non-Christian) religions acknowledge the oneness of God and the creation in some way, usually overtly and as a primary feature of the universe. The realization of the Oneness may be thought of as enlightenment. As Christians, we can create a bridge of rapport with followers of other religions by acknowledging that the Bible likewise has verses which indicate that God and the universe are emanations from God/The One.

As Christians, by recognizing the oneness of God and all creation, we remove a large barrier of difference in the conception of the universe with other religions. Such acknowledgment allows us as Christians to examine finer distinctions/differences in the principles, promises, and pursuits of other religions. By examining the articles of faith remaining, a more bridgeable gap is revealed. At this point, we may be able to confront the wide spectrum of questions typically asked by the seeker about the practicalities of life and how they are regulated by the Biblical perspective of life and how it should be lived.

The goal of Christianity is living a good life. In Christianity, the separation between God, the creation, and man is the foundational creative imperative/principle/dictate/design parameter. The unity between God and all of Creation may be a fact, but there must be a separation between God and man. In the Biblical worldview, the separation between God and man is not something that we are trying to dissolve in an experiential way. Rather, as Christians we are using it as a foundational principle that must be honored to the point of creating individuation.

The truth we uphold as Christians must reflect Biblical principles and cosmology, and other religions will hold different beliefs about moral principles and the construction of the universe. The difficulty in studying other faiths is that the precepts can be mutually exclusive. Nevertheless, such dialogue and examination can be valuable. The goal is to identify distinctions which are at odds with reality, but metaphysical reality is usually outside the possibility of determination of truth/factuality.

The purpose of engagement with followers of different beliefs should not primarily be to prove them wrong, but rather to challenge our own conception of truth. We should seek to understand the principles that may be revealed through the practices and beliefs of others. Ultimately, there is one Truth, and examining how various religions highlight certain principles, questions, and dilemmas about life can deepen our understanding of that Truth regarding life and God.

Mike Shreve sees other religions as incomplete or simply wrong compared to Christianity, but as a seeker. I agree, there is only one truth, but I needed to learn about the spectrum of world religions to truly understand Christianity. By discussing beliefs with followers of other religions in the spirit of trying to find the truth, we will expose the areas where we have a well connected rationalization of our faith, and where our justification is weak. We should speak about our faith. We should deeply share our faith about important issues that can guide how we live life.