{The Father [continued (3)]}[4th August 1989]

[Redbook6:198][19890804:0000f]{The Father [continued (3)]}[4th August 1989]

19890804

[continued]

I do not suggest that this* necessarily is God – how could I? – but it is the touch of God;** and there is a mind*** behind it which, although it is not fully revealed to me, reminds me strongly of Einstein’s description of God as ‘The Old One’.

It is perfectly possible for Men, not so much to distort the Father (as they do distort their perception of the Spirit), as to imagine him, reconstructing their own god on a flimsy basis of religious knowledge; such gods tend to reflect their human [sic] creators’ characteristics, although in fact they may be lower archetypes mistaken for gods.

Biblical evidence suggests that the Human quality which is directly returned by the Father is Love for him, leading ultimately to Union with God. When Humans are (or believe themselves to be) inspired by God to make laws, the laws are directed downwards towards subject Men, of course, and not upwards to God. Since there is then**** no real exchange there between God and Man, the danger of an unrealised loss of contact is considerable: Man goes on making laws, but is no longer inspired by God.# In order to remain in contact with God, Man must not only listen to God, but speak to God – even if only to ask him questions.

*[See last previous entry]

**{cf [[Redbook6:196-197][19890804:0000d]{The Father}[4th August 1989] ] 196}

***or Soul, and purpose

****[‘then’ inserted] <890814>

#{cf [[Redbook6:255-257][19890013:0927#]{Biblical Circles (3)}[18th July 1989],] 255,

[[Redbook6:159-160][19890718:1601]{Deuteronomic Circles and Fertility Rites}[18th July 1989],] 159}

[continues]

[PostedBlogger28for29012020]