jan11

Passed some people arguing on the street yesterday. Well, when I passed them it was more of a surprisingly civil discussion considering one was a guy with a microphone preaching about God and sin and such while the other was a trans person explaining why they were trans.

I didn't stick around to listen, all I heard while passing was the trans person saying that they felt they should have been born a girl and the other guy saying that they were born a boy which means that's what they were supposed to be. It occured to me in that moment that both were right in a sense.

Whatever is is what's meant to be. From the perspective of this all being God's Creation, whatever is must be God's will, aka What Is. How could anything that is not be? Everything emerges, is part of and returns to God. Everything is orchestrated by God. Nothing is left out, even what appears to us as wrong or evil or sinful and causes us pain or fear or anger. It's all included. If we claim otherwise then we're claiming that God is wrong and we're right. How absurd is that from the perspective of God being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent?

So basically, someone feeling fine with their gender is God's will. Someone feeling uncomfortable with their gender is God's will. Someone feeling fine with people feeling uncomfortable with their gender is God's will. Someone feeling that it's wrong for people to feel uncomfortable with their gender is God's will. Someone transitioning at some point in their life is God's will. Someone preaching about that being wrong is God's Will. Someone stopping to argue about it is God's will. And someone passing by and thinking that it's all part of God's will is God's will.

Nothing is left out. The people who perceive things as good and right and those who perceive the same things as wrong and sinful. They're two sides of one coin, joined in the interplay of God/Creation. Anyone who reads this and agrees is part of and carrying out God's will, and anyone who reads this and disagrees is too. It's all-inclusive. How could anything be left out in one interdependent creation/space?

I wonder if this would be considered a radical view? I don't think it should, it seems logical to me. And as long as you're not overly preoccupied with conceptual distinctions and are still connected to your nature and heart, there's no danger in this perspective. Because you know right from wrong when you're sensitive and aware enough to discern the consequences of actions in your own body/mind. You don't need to intellectualize or philosophize on morality - it's self evident in the moment, or if not in the moment then shortly after. Everyone has their blindspots and weaknesses though I suppose.

Someone got upset with me once because they felt I was supporting moral relativism when I expressed something like this. I was basically saying that everyone is the way they are regardless of what we think and feel about it. I don't know or really care what "ism" that would be classified as in a philosophy class. It doesn't mean that there aren't consequences for actions, such as some feeling drawn to or believing certain things that frighten and hurt others who then seek to contain, punish or eliminate the former. If either exists then on some level they're meant to be, because they are. We may not like it but they're here, just as others might not like that we're here.

For some reason it was helpful to consider that while passing those two, because sometimes I can still fall into pointless thoughts around how some things that are shouldn't be. Everyone is the way they're meant to be and everyone becomes the way they're meant to become, regardless of what I or anyone else thinks or feels about it. Because that's what actually is. Why waste energy resisting what is? Why put more value into mere thoughts over reality?

Now, when I say this I say it with full awareness that everyone is different, meaning that I don't expect or want everyone else in the world to agree with these perspectives. That is not the way the world is/is meant to be, there are meant to be uncountable humans who disagree with this perspective and resist what I accept, and vice versa. That's how it is and therefore is meant to be. The world isn't, and therefore isn't meant to be, completely uniform and harmonious. It has, and is therefore meant to have, differences and conflict.

There are meant to be people who love other people. There are meant to be people who hate other people. There are meant to be people who defend other people. And there are meant to be people who hurt other people. Because they're all part of what is. There are meant to be some who accept what is and some who resist what is. Actually most of the time everyone is included in each of these and have their own things that they love and hate, defend and hurt, accept and resist, whether intentionally or unconsciously. It's all happening in each being in this one space.

I can see why this might be conflicting for those who believe or want God to be all good/loving (usually in relation to them/their values) and fundamentally separate from that which isn't. If God is all good/loving, how can he be okay with the things that cause me pain? Wouldn't that mean that he's not all good/loving? My response is only that I don't claim to know what God/Life is or all of its qualities, predilections and purposes. I also don't know what might ultimately turn out to be good/loving in the end and what won't. All I know is that Life is and that it is as it is, or rather that it is and appears as it appears. So there's no conflict for me. I don't expect God/Life to be any kind of way regardless of what anyone thinks, believes or claims about its totality/ultimate nature. I just have my own fleeting experience of this phenomena. I have the experience of perceiving something incomprehensibly vast, varied, dynamic and mysterious of which I'm intrinsically part. I have some thoughts, feelings and intuitions about it but that's all. I don't claim to know its ultimate nature.