The American Jesus

Michael-Jackson-And-Jesus

‘Michael, the American Jesus’ by David LaChapelle

Jesus is one of the ascended masters and deities that I still adore, that I still commune with. The Jesus (or ‘Yeshua’, the actual earthly name that he had) who loved children and was kind to everyone, who was so popular (people had to climb trees to catch a glimpse of him, and struggle through crowds to touch him), breaking as many stupid rules as he could during his earthly incarnation, focusing on love, forgiveness, kindness, and healing, despite the injustice that he suffered and the false news that was spread about him in religious & non-religious places. Yahweh, whose very essence is ‘spirit’, not ‘Christian’, not even ‘Jew’, not bound by any man-made ideologies or the accounts of who he was that was documented in the Bible many centuries ago.

The very essence of the spirit of Jesus is very peaceful, loving, kind, and true. People are focusing on the earthly incarnation of Jesus, mostly uninterested in who the spirit is. They are turning to the books of Matthew, Mark, John, and Luke to look up what Jesus the Man said (as far as we know, yeah), not caring so much about what Jesus meant, and most-importantly, what Jesus is saying now, which is quite redundant, if you ask me, especially since you acknowledge daily that spirits exist even after an earthly incarnation, that Jesus is alive somewhere.  

If Jesus was to return as a human today, you will absolutely not find him in a church, or a cathedral, or anywhere near the pope. There are more chances of finding him in Jasmine Masters or Bobrisky’s living room, or the orphanage, or with the people of the Amazon, than any of those places. To the Pharisees, he was a major weirdo, and it’s not hard to see why. He wasn’t a member of the religious elite, in a sense, but he was, and that was uncomfortable.

People have made an ideology, a political system, and a cult out of what they think God/Spirit and Jesus are, and it is scary, to say the least. The wickedness that has been carried out in those names, the discrimination, the hatred, the scamming, and everything else, is nauseating.

A majority of people do not understand what they are doing in Jesus’ name; they just go with the flow. It has become a game of ‘those who will make it to Heaven’ versus ‘those who will make it to hell’ much more than anything else, and that’s quite stupid because all our souls came from Heaven. We’ve walked the streets of gold, we’ve seen other realms, and we can all chill. Religion has an uncanny ability to make people very proud of and confident in their ignorance, and it’s an ugly sight to behold.

This is a really good painting. There are distinct similarities between the last earthly incarnations of Michael and that of Jesus, both being sons of ‘Joseph’ but not really, much more, betrayed by the very people that they trusted and loved (for money and acceptance).

Advertisements

Loyalty is Not “Not Cheating”

loy·al·ty
ˈloiəltē/
noun
  1. the quality of being loyal to someone or something.
    “her loyalty to her husband of 34 years”
    • a strong feeling of support or allegiance.
      plural noun: loyalties
      “fights with in-laws are distressing because they cause divided loyalties

“I pledge to Nigeria my country. To be faithful, loyal…”

I am loyal to Nigeria but I am not in Her; allow me to personify the country. I have not, and will never, renounce Her as my home country, or do anything to hurt Her, but again, I am not in Her. I’m going to use this as an analogy for what I’m about to discuss- the concept of loyalty in relationships.

The term “loyal” or “loyalty” doesn’t really do justice to what people expect in relationships, in the sense that, they expect their partner or significant other to show them firm and constant support- which is as far as the dictionary meaning of “loyalty” goes, but they do not expect that partner to show firm and constant support to anyone else that is marriageable (especially), whether or not the support their partner is offering involves activities that are sexual.

So, even if you feel your* lady is talking too much with a man, or your* man is spending too much time with a woman, whether or not it conflicts with the love that she has for you, how much he cares for you, and how fast his/her heart beats for you, the term that comes to your mind is “disloyalty”, although it really isn’t, because nothing has changed about how much he or she is dedicated to the relationship that you share.

You can be loyal to a country you don’t live in. You can be loyal to a friend and still have other friends. You wouldn’t chat your friend’s private business to the other friend(s) or leave the first friendship, or withdraw your support, and that would be loyalty.

Family

I don’t know if you’re following me here, but what I’m saying is, there has to be a firmer word, something stricter than “loyalty” or “faithfulness”, because they do not insist that the qualities that they contain have to be restricted to one person, and one person only. 

Even “cheating” is meh, because a love relationship is not a game or an examination. It is, ideally, a voluntary union of two people. They don’t get marks for it or win medals for it, so even the term “cheating” does not make any sense.

Now, before you think of me as the advocate of everything you detest, I am only stating that the words are not powerful enough to encompass the strict binding, which would be more accurate, that most people expect in relationships. Even asides religious and cultural expectations, does love come with sole possession? Does “I love you” automatically equal “I love only you” to you? What exactly is it that leads to hurt feelings when a third party is involved? My best guess is that when we get vulnerable, since true love (requited or not) makes us somewhat vulnerable, we want a kind of “ownership”, possession of sorts, to whoever it is we’ve gotten vulnerable with.