Then, the One sighed and burst outward spherically. As this sphere expanded, it became more fragmented, diverse and complex. The components of sub-nuclear particles coalesced. They had no mass. They were pure energy, either positive or negative, maintaining the perfect balance of the One. There was no life as we know it and therefore, no good and evil. All that 'lived' were the forming galaxies spreading away from their common starting point.

Sub-nuclear particles congealed and stabilized, then combined to become the simplest atoms; atoms coalesced into molecules. The positive and negative charges determined what would repel and what would attract, always in perfect balance. The universe was not uniform; each component had a unique position and function.

Larger collections of molecules remained aflame; their components remained relatively simple. They became stars.  As they spun, they threw off energy and matter. This material coalesced to become the planets, some of which, in turn, threw off molten pieces of themselves, which became the moons.

As all of these celestial objects congealed and cooled, so did the atoms and molecules that composed them as well as those which floated freely between them. These molecules would form and break up; the neutral charges would thus be disrupted, and a free-floating element would be drawn in to reconstitute the original molecule or form a new combination. Thus, molecules could replicate themselves and, if conditions allow, develop greater diversity and complexity.

All of this was and is governed by the order and balance of the One. The One then occupied more space and became more diverse and complex, but remained an interconnected whole; complete unto itself.

The fact that there is controversy over how life began is unnecessary and unfortunate. How the ultimate mover of all things operates should be nothing more nor less than an awe-inspiring wonder.

Among the simplest known life forms are prions, such as "mad-cow" disease. They are far simpler than the retrovirus known as HIV. Prions are little more than self-replicating molecules. The earliest forms of life were probably much less refined than these prions. We should not scoff at them for their simplicity, however. They continue to exist to this day. They can survive in the vacuum of space and probably float between the stars, if not the galaxies.

Therefore, any place that can support life will be seeded by these molecules or ones like them. The One does not put its eggs in one basket; if life does not survive in one place, there are others.

Such seeds of life then found our own Mother Earth, being warmed by our own Father Sun.

The rarity of places where life can exist is truly astronomical. The type of star, the size and composition of the planet, the shape and speed of the orbit; the tilt and speed of planetary rotation, the gravitational pull, the strength and stability of the magnetic field - the parameters under which life is possible are very narrow indeed.

Thus, 'precious' doesn't seem a sufficient characterization. With such suitable parents as our Sun and Earth, the seeds of life took root. The Mother Earth, the Father Sun and all of the living things that they bore are children of The One; they are still integral parts of The One.

Most of life's history on Earth is composed of the development of the simplest life forms, the ancestors of prions, then rudimentary viruses, finally one-celled organisms. In comparison, one living thing mustn't be held as "primitive" or "inferior."  Some living things are just simpler than others. Simplicity offers the advantage of adaptability. Indeed, if more complex organisms perish, the simpler ones will be there to fill the void and start the process again, in a different way.

The One has always been and will always be an interconnected whole. Only recently have our detection devices been able to sense the myriad forms of energy that permeate and connect everything, even in a supposed vacuum. As life develops, this energy is amplified, transmitted, conducted, manipulated.

Still, there was no good or evil. All of the living things of the world at that point were innocent. That changed with the development of the cerebral cortex and the reasoning mind. Some religions describe a "fall from grace" with the advent of consciousness. A fairer characterization would be the loss of innocence that every child goes through as he/she matures.

At the earliest stages of development, our ancestors could not have survived without a keen appreciation that there are universally applicable laws of nature that must be discovered and obeyed. The One does not grant exceptions. If you fall from a certain height, you will be hurt or killed. If you stick your hand in a flame, you will burn; it doesn't matter what you believe or wish. The laws of Nature are Divine Law.

As for ethics and morality, the same principle applies. That which supports life, nurtures it and helps it grow is good and is rewarded. That which undermines life is bad and is punished. What may be painful or difficult in the short run, can help in the long run. Nonetheless, we are all born with the ability to discern right and wrong. Deviation occurs when the Inner Voice is ignored in favor of rebellious self-delusion. Any seeming ambiguity is due to the conflict between the fleeting desires of the moment versus the long-range universal good.

‘Pagan’ is a term ascribed by adherents of the major monotheistic Middle Eastern religions to any other theological system. Theirs is to be regarded as the only true religion and Deity; all others kneel before craven images and worship demons.

In monotheism, one deity serves as a complete representation of the One. In polytheism, several Deities serve to represent the many facets of the One. Most practitioners of Natural religion also consider each living thing to also be a facet of the One, as well as an expression of the One's glory. In pantheism, there is no personality Deity, there is, rather, a sense of Deity being the whole of existence, with each living and non-living thing being a particle of the One.

Our deities also serve as a representation of our view of ourselves and our values and priorities. The more committed we are to sincerely show appreciation for the blessing that is life and the more open we are to find the truth, the better our religion serves us.

The dogmatic, hierarchical religions have a distinct political advantage over religions that accept that there are many paths to the One Truth. [This Truth, by the way, is for each of us to discover, not make.] Dogma allows no dissent, no discussions, nor interpretation, save for the elite. Dogma does evolve over time, as do the needs of the hierarchy.

With issues as fundamental as the nature of existence, our capabilities of dealing with our environment, and morality being handed down as divine law from an elite class, the power potential is as enormous as it is seductive. It is also comforting to those who lack the courage to find answers independently to delegate that responsibility to a [hopefully] benign ruling class.

And so it went on, for thousands of generations. Wherever civilization took root, dogma took root as well. People who lived simpler, nomadic lives remained freer of this. This does not mean that they were less devout than their dogmatic brethren.  Indeed, the dogmatists alienate themselves from the knowledge of The One by devoting themselves to adhering to the edicts of clerics rather than being open [and having the courage] to finding truth independently [and thus, directly].

The more dogmatic a perspective becomes, the more alienated it is from the Truth. The Truth is something that one surrenders to by opening his/her mind, heart and spirit and letting it in. It is not found by cloistering oneself away and believing only what other men had scratched upon pieces of paper long ago.

Eventually, the dogmatic and more civilized people came to supplant, absorb, dominate, and/or annihilate the less numerous nomadic barbarians. Gradually, though, people began to question the need for an elite to dominate the majorityspiritually, politically, and economically. A consequent explosion of inquiry and creativity swept civilization. The arts, sciences, politics, philosophy, and theologywere scrutinized and amplified with new eyes and open minds.

Thus, flush with our technological prowess, we came to believe we had conquered nature - didn't need to follow any rules: 'We make the rules now.' The dogmatic religions fell out of favor as anachronisms; irrelevant in a modern world. Spiritual considerations were dismissed as childish superstition.

When human beings left the motherland of the species [Africa], different climates were encountered and we adapted, physically and behaviorally. Nationalists would have us believe that once separated, we were never meant to find each other again. If we were unfortunate enough to encounter our long lost siblings, we must avoid or annihilate each other but certainly not mix. Genetic inbreeding and cultural isolation are to be held as the ‘purity’ which leads to strength. The worthiest races would be destined to rule and justified in taking the best territory and resources for themselves.

Concurrent to and, in some cases, in combination with this Nationalism was Utopian Ideology. Adherents of this concept could not fully reject the aristocratic notion that the majority of people lack the virtue and ability to make any more than the most rudimentary of personal decisions. Therefore, an 'ideal society' must then be devised by those who are 'blessed' with the superior insight rather than the superior bloodline. Those who lack this gift must be forced to conform or be destroyed. It is for the good of all. This perspective is typically characterized as the most forward-looking and 'progressive' ideology. Those who oppose it are smeared as 'reactionary.'

After two World Wars, it was generally recognized that utopian dreams and tribal chauvinism were unworkable concepts. Unfortunately, now, all ideological theorization is considered to be impractical at best, and has been largely abandoned. Instead governments embrace ‘pragmatism’, which is a fancy word for existing from one moment to the next with no consistent plan.

Technological development continues apace, while political theory languishes in the remotest corners of the ivory towers of academia. Thus, higher and higher technology is being governed by political structures that are more and more obsolete. In other words, we are faced with the prospect of 21st century technology being governed by 18th century (or earlier) politics.

With religion, patriotism, and idealism abandoned, there was little left to aspire to but the acquisition of things and power. There seemed only a choice between the arbitrary morality provided by dogma or the amorality provided by moral relativism and hedonism.

Consequently, some people now have become wistful about the dogmatic past. It may have been arbitrary and tyrannical, but at least there was a sense of something greater than ourselves; at least there was a ready-made code of do's and don'ts; at least there was order and hope. As long as one didn't challenge authority, there was a modicum of security and predictability.

Others became equally dogmatic in their hedonism. Get what you can. Forget the consequences. We are smart and powerful; we can fix any problems that come along. Anyone who suggests otherwise is to be vitriolically attacked.

The first attitude is childish; we cannot use deities as substitutes for parents. We must find our own answers. We cannot be so blindly obedient to anyone who is willing to tell us what to do and hope to do much more than exist. There are charlatans who are only too willing to exploit the hunger for direction and hope. They appoint themselves as the voice of the Divine and, in so doing, offer alienation from reality [and from the One]. The ultimate result has been played out many times: costumed bodies neatly lined up, outsiders wondering why lives had been thrown away needlessly.

The second attitude is adolescent; we cannot be so full of ourselves to think we can outsmart nature. We are no less subject to her laws than before. Some will say morality is relative; what is right for you may not be right for me - there is no universal standard of good and evil. Consider, hypothetically, that there is such a thing as good and evil [and recognizing that morality is a code of survival]. Which side would tend to benefit and which would perish from denying a difference between good and evil?

Some may choose a Natural religion because there is no written dogma and so it is possible to have a spiritual life and still make up whatever rules suit our fancy. If it were only so! Dogmatists have it easy; they have someone to feed them the rules. We have it much harder; we have to commit ourselves to sincerely search for them, and have the courage to accept the responsibility for our choices.

We have our deities to help us, to use as conduits to the One. The One is still whole and complete and we are part of The One. The matter and energy that comprise ourbodies and spirits are made of the same material that existed at the beginning of time. The answers lie within each one of us. Our destiny is ours to determine, but the rules are not. Whatever we choose to do, the law of cause and effect cannot be avoided.

If we fail, We can be replaced; the One will continue.