Thank you for sharing your story and views. I appreciate hearing the perspectives of others and how they were reached.
I think the historical Jesus, revealed in the scriptures as God in the flesh, that I believe in is much more moral and loving simply because He exists as opposed to a mystical, esoteric Jesus that doesn’t except in the imagination. More importantly, the real Person of Jesus Christ who is God and Creator offers real personal transformation to everyone and solutions for the problems in the world. The idea of a universal/cosmic christ consciousness is not new as you stated yourself. Yet, from my perspective this concept or belief is not very realistic or hopeful. Human behavior and history of greed, war, violence, etc. proves the truthful reality expressed in the Bible that everyone sins. If we truly are divine or have access to some cosmic consciousness then it is quite extraordinary that our divine self or cosmic connection is so easily blinded, overpowered and paralyzed by our ignorant self. How can the lower human self so easily subdue the all-knowing, all power divine cosmic God/Christ consciousness you speak of so that human evil and violence prevail so pervasively on earth?
I think that when we examine ourselves honestly it is clear that a real Savior is needed. I don’t think Jesus was playing mind or word games with hidden meanings when He made statements like: “I am the way, the truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through Me” ; And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”; “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.”; “For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.”
The problem in believing in a Jesus who is a part of the Trinity you believe in is that ity associates a kind and gentle man with a genocidal son murdering vile and evil demiurge.
How do you reconcile the Jesus shepherd who will die for a human soul and will not judge it, to the God who created hell and the lake of fire to consume the vast majority of us?
Jesus would walk through fire to save us while God uses fire to destroy most of us?
---------------------------
As to needing a savior. You are saying we are a make work project for God who has to baby sit us and die for us when you well know that God cannot die. This aside.
Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?
Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and placing all the blame on mankind.
That usually sounds like ----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability as the author and creator of human nature.
Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.
If all do evil/sin by nature then, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree with Christians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’s responsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that can only be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has been forcibly withheld.
Much has been written to explain evil and sin but I see as a natural part of evolution.
Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.
In secular courts, this is called mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court will not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of the act.
Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil, at all times.
Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.
This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.
Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, without evolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.
There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.
This link speak to theistic evolution.
The Pope Would Like You to Accept Evolution And the Big Bang | Smart News | Smithsonian
If theistic evolution is true, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not really any original sin.
Doing evil then is actually forced on us by evolution and the need to survive. Our default position is to cooperate or to do good. I offer this clip as proof of this. You will note that we default to good as it is better for survival.
Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?
Regards
DL
As I recall, you did, and as I pointed out, you brought him up under the misguided pretext that the "Ego" I was talking about was somehow synonymous with Freud's "Id". 
