This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
Below is a response Fellow Healer in New York had to a previous “Ask Jane” Q & A. For the original Ask Jane Q & A with Sally that this response is about, click here.
Fellow Healer in New York: YES.. and integrity means wholeness with self …watching the game may just be more in Integrity for this man, then following a promise he in retrospect will prob. not make again!
Jane: Being in integrity with himself is not about the action Sally’s husband (I’m calling Jake) decides to take one way or the other. It’s the process by which he gets there. People often take a stand on one particular action in order to feel in integrity with themselves, in order to hold some kind of boundary. But they only need to do that if there is an unhealed issue that results, for example, in them tending to give up their needs for the sake of the other person’s needs, if they don’t rigidly take this kind of stand. And so doing it that way is a part of an emotional defense system that ends up causing a separation with the other person in order to feel you can have your own needs met. This is the kind of dynamic that often occurs in relationships in which people believe it’s not possible to both be in integrity with yourself, and also be vulnerably and intimately connected to the other person.
The only way around that is to engage in dialog and be willing to explore your own unhealed issues (limiting decisions*), which requires letting go of control, rather than taking control, and results in transformation.
Jake had agreed to go to the event with Sally. But when he realized there was a crucial football game on TV that was really important to him that conflicted with him going to this event, his knee jerk emotional response was feeling forced to go to the event with Sally or she would probably get really upset. And so he emotionally rebelled by blurting out that he wasn’t going, before he could get his conscious mind around what he was doing. So basically his knee jerk response causes a separation, believing this to be the only way he could get to do what he really wanted to do. This is based on the very common belief that if we stay connected in reality with each other when there appears to be conflicting desires, there won’t be a solution. In other words that it’s not possible for life to work out well for all concerned. So Jake caused a separation because he believed that there inherently was a separation between his desires and Sally’s. It feels far less painful to cause a separation from an invulnerable, defended place, then to feel at the mercy of there inherently being a separation between himself and the person he loves, when he’s coming from a vulnerable place. And that is because if that would turn out to be true, it would be evidence that life doesn’t work.
But the truth is — the only thing that could create this situation not to work out well for all concerned are the limiting decisions* each person brings to the table, that causes each to respond from a defended place, rather than being open to a solution.
As it turned out, after they discussed the situation, a friend of Sally’s came to town and Sally asked her to go with her, which worked out well. What was keeping Sally stuck in having bad feelings toward Jake was a limiting decision* in her.
* Limiting Decisions: Unconscious decisions, usually made before the age of 6 or 7, such as “I am bad,” “I am not good enough.” “People can’t be trusted.” They are always some form of deciding that life doesn’t work, and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you.
Jane Ilene Cohen will be interviewed by
Kalon Women Community’s Founder, Sandra Levitin
August 4th at 6:30pm Eastern Time / 3:30pm Pacific Time
Suppose you could… Change your perspective of reality in a way that would deeply empower you to take charge of your life no matter what is going on in your outside world and no longer struggle at trying to make life work.
Intuitive & Transformational Counselor, Teacher and Author, Jane Ilene Cohen, will share the personal journey that brought her to a totally positive new thought system, based on the principle “Life is Meant to Work.” This thought system, combined with her NLP training, is what has enabled her to facilitate profound life-changing results for her clients for the past 14 years.
Other Topics include:
“Limiting Decisions: How Your Perception of Reality Gets Distorted”
“Is Life Meant to Work or Is It Not?”
“Self-Interest vs. Enlightened Self-Interest”
To hear the show and/or ask any questions call (347-884-8656)
The preview call audio for my upcoming
“Life is Meant to Work” 12-week Tele-seminar — is now here.
In this preview I share the personal journey that brought me to a totally positive new thought system, based on the principle “Life is Meant to Work.” This thought system, combined with my NLP training, is what has enabled me to facilitate profound life-changing results for my clients for the past 14 years.
I also describe some of the basic ideas from this thought system, addressing these 3 topics:
“Limiting Decisions: How Your Perception of Reality Gets Distorted”
“Is Life Meant to Work, or Is It Not?”
“Self-interest vs. Enlightened Self-Interest”
In addition you’ll get the main details of what is included in the “Life is Meant to Work” program.
I hope you enjoy the audio, and I welcome any comments, responses or questions you might have.
Warmly,
Jane Ilene Cohen
(760) 753-0733
Excerpts from the Preview Call
“When I took a stand on life is meant to work, it’s like I walked through a portal or a gateway in which a whole other landscape was now visible or available to me.And I started tapping into a whole body of knowledge that I had no idea of before.”
____________
“The reason ‘The Secret’ and the Law of Attraction has become so popular is it is about being able to manifest into our lives what we desire, rather than feeling at the mercy of forces outside of ourselves. But many people have difficulty in making this work for themselves, or have success with it only in specific and limited areas of their lives. Really understanding how to effectively use the Law of Attraction requires much more than what is generally taught, and represents a step forward in the human evolutionary process. The meaning of this goes way beyond being able to manifest a certain number of dollars per month, or buying the fancy new sports car. It is a shift in where we understand our source of safety and well-being comes from.”
____________
“From the very individual perspective to the larger global perspective, many people experience life as not working. But they don’t understand how we are participating in creating this, just believing it to be the nature of how life is. And therefore we are looking in the wrong direction for solutions.”
________
“We experience reality as something objective that is external to us, and that imposes itself on us. But our perception of reality is, in fact, very subjective and changeable, because we are never experiencing reality directly. We are only experiencing a model of reality. There are thousands of bits of information that are bombarding our senses every moment, and it would be impossible to take all of it in. So we filter in a very small percentage of it, and filter out most of it. What we decide to filter in or out is very subjective and changeable. This means, to a large degree, we are choosing our experience of reality, as opposed to reality imposing itself on us.”
______
“Our internal state is caused by our interpretation of what is happening out in the world, rather than something objective that is happening to us. And we don’t realize that our interpretations are very often a result of projecting our limiting decisions onto something or someone outside of ourselves.”
“It’s crucial to understand how subjective, changeable and effectible our experience or perception of reality is, in order to have a choice about what to do about it. Most people believe this instability has to do the nature of reality, and don’t realize that it’s actually internal to themselves. And since the internal process causing it is generally very unconscious, what we end up doing about it is also an unconscious process, which often doesn’t end up serving us.”
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
This question is from Jered in San Diego, CA (Real names are never used.)
Jered: As we all know, the head of BP Oil is being crucified in the press. From my perspective, his personal comments to the public and Congress are the sincere truth. His people are working around the clock to solve the problem. He goes home to the UK for personal family time and to get a few hours of fresh air. Certainly, his mind is preoccupied. Yet no matter what he does or says that is truthful – the public is unsatisfied. How does one handle these situations? It’s as though the truth is insufficient as compared to a carefully postured response.
Jane: We don’t really know the character of Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, or really what responsibility he does or doesn’t hold for what occurred. But I agree that he may very well be saying the sincere truth, but that many people want a scapegoat. They want someone to emotionally pay for their suffering, as if that would make them feel better.
The whole idea of sharing the suffering seems to be very strong in people. If I am suffering, then you ought to be suffering also — or you don’t care, you are selfish, you are a bad person. But this has nothing to do with any real solutions, or any easing of human pain.
This is a triggered kind of emotional response, and not reality-based. Whether Mr. Hayward is outwardly suffering or not, has no actual benefit to anyone who is suffering because of the oil spill. It won’t have any effect on solutions being found any faster, or people getting compensated any faster.
People who are invested in finding scapegoats for their suffering are looking in the wrong direction for any real solutions, and are invested in holding in place vibrations of misery, hatred and pain. As a result, I would guess, this is only one of many sources of misery in their lives, as this is what they would attract.
To answer your question more directly, about how to handle this kind of situation: Rather than the focus being on how other people might respond to us, as if that is the source of our well-being, and trying to cater to them, the real dialog is between oneself and a larger perspective, beyond the limited human scope of things. In other words, specifically in relation to Mr. Hayward, I’m sure there are lessons for him to learn, or he wouldn’t have found himself in this kind of situation in the first place. For example it is possible that he might have an emotional defense system of keeping himself at a distance from getting emotionally or personally involved in general, believing that that will keep him safe. This experience could rock that defense system, and be a huge wake-up call for him. Perhaps if he had been more personally involved, he may have prevented what happened.
* Limiting Decisions: Unconscious decisions, usually made before the age of 6 or 7, such as “I am bad,” “I am not good enough.” “People can’t be trusted.” They are always some form of deciding that life doesn’t work, and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you.
Life is Meant to Work
Prepare Yourself for a New Reality
Tele-Seminar
Underneath everything in human experience — the pain, the tragedy, the heartache, the perceived unfairness — the bottom line always turns out to reveal love.
This is because the only thing that really exists between people, underneath their emotional defense systems, is love. Our defense systems are a way to shield us from the pain of believing we don’t have it. Think about the last time you got angry at someone. Perhaps you felt they were inconsiderate of you, or were disrespectful of you, or took something that mattered to you away from you. If you really knew, in that moment, that you are fully loved and cared about, wouldn’t that change that angry feeling? And if, because of knowing that you are fully loved and cared for, you began relating to your friend or significant other out of love and compassion, instead of anger, do you think that would change either their behavior toward you, or your perception of their behavior?
Underneath pain is love. When you are grieving because someone you love has died, what is underneath the grieving is love for them. When people rose up as a community after 9-11 occurred, what they were feeling was love for all of the people who died. The strange thing about that is why does it take a catastrophe for us to feel love for each other? Often we don’t really acknowledge how much we love someone until they are seriously ill and/or die. Why is that?
The feeling of love is very intense, when we really acknowledge the fullness of how we feel. Being able to feel the intensity of how much we actually love is an evolving process, as it seems to be too much for us to feel its full impact in our present vibrational state. It is generally in direct opposition to aspects of our defended self. In fact, it can split it open. The full intensity of our love can feel like an expansion of the self that goes further out than we have the ability to stretch. And so mostly we divert that feeling into our defenses, rather than admit what it really is.
It can also feel like a breaking open, when the vulnerable emotions break through the defenses, dissolving us into tears. You could say that is the meaning of a broken heart. The heart breaks open, so that the emotions that have been trapped by the rigidity of the defenses can rush out. When a loved one dies, we cry for the pain and loss, rather than embrace the intense love we feel for them, right now, even with their passing. The depth and intensity of our feelings are often more easily diverted to hate or pain than to opening ourselves up to the intense vulnerability of love, which cuts through all of our defenses, false personas and worlds.
To listen to the Preview audio for the next “Life is Meant to Work” Tele-seminar, click here.
For the info page with all of the details about the upcoming “Life is Meant to Work” Tele-seminar, click here.
Question from Manny from Rancho Santa Fe (real names are never used):
Manny: What does the evolved person think about in a situation in which they are being physically attacked, besides trying to physical ward off one’s attacker or escape without harm?
Jane: That depends on where you are in your personal journey, what you have the capability of doing. The main challenge is to get yourself out of an emotionally triggered state (caused by limiting decisions*), which most people would be very much in. You want to get yourself, instead, in a resourceful state, in which you are relating to the actual reality of the situation, rather than the distorted one the attacker is representing. So in other words, instead of entering into the attacker’s distorted world, you connect with what is actually true in reality. So it’s just a question of how much your internal world resonates with the attacker’s distorted world, and how much you are able to bring yourself out of his world and into a positive and resourceful one. That determines how well you’re likely do in that situation, and what resources you’re likely to be able to tap into. The objective is to get so strong in orienting your reality around a larger truth that you don’t get pulled into this kind of distorted illusion of reality.
Being a victim is a state of mind, not a physical circumstance, and is not determined by how physically strong you are or aren’t. It is not about whatever you might experience physically, but the state of mind you get into, in whatever the circumstances you find yourself in.
The illusion being created by the attacker it is not about the actual possible physical harm that could be imposed. It is about the hateful, fearful, separating, substitute world that he is representing. This world is holding in place the illusion that hate and negativity are more powerful than love. It is about the distorted meaning that is attached to whatever physical action is happening. And that distorted meaning is really what the attacker is invested in. If you are not buying into that distortion, it is less likely you’ll end up being physically harmed. And if you are physically harmed, it will not be so traumatic to you emotionally. And there will be some learning in there for you that will move you forward on your evolutionary path.
What the evolved person does in his or her mind is ask for inner or Divine guidance, in all situations, especially including ones in which there appears to be no solutions, such as what you are describing. They call upon the larger truth, universal wisdom, a perspective beyond their own limited human perception, and beyond their limiting decisions.
The totally enlightened person is always in contact with their Guidance, which guides every moment in their lives. And so they are always being guided to the best place for them to be in for their highest good. They are so much in their power that everything that happens to them is in alignment with the larger truth.
* Limiting Decisions: Unconscious decisions, usually made before the age of 6 or 7, such as “I am bad,” “I am not good enough.” “People can’t be trusted.” They are always some form of deciding that life doesn’t work, and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you.
We know this because life is set up so that what really benefits us is the way forward, and what harms us is the way backwards. There are certain kinds of behaviors people tend to go toward that lead to our lives working less and less well. They are behaviors or things we think benefit us, but really don’t. Examples are: one person giving up their power to another in a relationship, in order to be taken care of, leading to being increasingly more dependent; or eating foods that feel comforting, but clog your arteries and cause obesity; or excessively drinking alcohol to feel good in the moment, but that harms your liver and causes you to behave in ways you later regret; and so on. These are examples of what I call “substitute desires” that are not in your real self-interest, but substitutes for what you really desire, based on limiting decisions* that you can’t have what really matters to you. It’s pretty clear that they are harmful to us and lead us backwards.
But moving toward true or enlightened self-interest, such as moving toward love in relationships, eating foods that are actually good for you, and developing yourself in areas of your life that are truly fulfilling and important to you — these lead your life forward. This means that going toward what feels good to the higher part of you moves you forward. It leads you toward who you really are, it leads you to the Divine in you, it leads you toward your inherent contribution in life.
Whether a particular behavior feels good to you or not depends on what part of you you are relating from. And so if, instead of your higher self, you are letting the unhealed parts of you rule, then you believe your substitute desires are what you desire. And eventually, any negative system is by its nature doomed to self-destruct, because it’s going in the opposite direction of what really matters to you, and what really benefits you.
The purpose of the evolutionary process is to move increasingly more toward our enlightened self-interest, that which truly benefits us. The whole universe, every particle of All-That-Is, is set up to move us toward what truly benefits us.
If we observe the human evolutionary process we can see that it inherently is benevolent, moving us toward our greater well-being. For instance, in the earlier evolutionary stages, it appears primitive people were constantly in danger of not surviving as a part of their daily lives. And their lives were extremely physically arduous, taken up with just surviving. There were limited choices and limited opportunities.
As humanity has evolved it has moved from a limited physical perspective, to increasingly greater consciousness, which has opened up increasingly more knowledge and possibilities, including being able to focus on more than just survival. Humanity has also moved from a limited understand of what power is to a more expanded and evolved one. And therefore it has moved from abusing those with less physical power, such as children and women, to more empowered lives for more of us. Laws created by humanity have also moved increasingly more toward being based on understanding and compassion rather than revenge and punishment.
The fact that the human evolutionary process is moving toward greater intelligence and an increasing sense of who we really are, is evidenced when you observe the younger generations, who are generally much brighter and more conscious than preceding ones.
These are just a few examples of humanity’s evolution forward. Of course there is also a great deal that is unevolved in the world, and people tend to notice where life or the human experience appears unevolved, without taking into account the huge evolutionary steps humanity has already taken.
The whole point about life being meant to work is that life is set up in a way in which that is the natural outcome, if you come into the truth of what life is about. The process of evolution is a process of moving toward what is actually true, as opposed to the unevolved misconceptions we started out with or developed along the way — such as the belief that physical power is true power, that men are more valuable than women, that punishment is an effective way to teach children, that exploiting workers is good for business. These ideas were based on limiting decisions* and substitute desires, and therefore were not the direction of the future. When the truth was discovered that there are much more effective forms of power than the physical, and that women are an invaluable asset in the world, and so on, we discover that life works much better, because these are based on truth. Every time innovators push through new ideas propelled by inspired insights, we discover a deeper truth about how life works, which then brings us into alignment with what is true, thereby causing life to work increasingly better.
And so we can see that the evolutionary process is an intelligent and benign process. It causes the expansion of truth, intelligence, love and compassion. We discover as we evolve forward that love works better than hate in relationships, in business, and in teaching children, and that compassion works better than brute force. Even in warfare we discover that addressing populations’ needs is more effective in gaining allies than bombing them. Evolution is, in fact, leading us toward love itself.
* Limiting Decisions: Unconscious decisions usually made before the ages of 6 or 7, that are some form of deciding that life doesn’t work and usually also that there is something inherently wrong with you, such as “I am bad,” “I’m not valuable,” “People can’t be trusted,” and so on.
To listen to the Preview audio for the next “Life is Meant to Work” Tele-seminar, click here.
For the info page with all of the details about the upcoming “Life is Meant to Work” Tele-seminar, click here.
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
This question was from Fiona in Oceanside (Real names are never used):
Fiona: I’m always sacrificing my own welfare for the benefit of my husband and my parents, in order to make them happy. They seem to be so unhappy and have so many difficulties in their lives. And so I end up not doing what’s good for myself. I don’t know what to do about this.
Jane: You are not responsible for another person’s suffering. Each person is on their own personal path in life. And if they find themselves in the position of suffering, it’s because of an unhealed issue, a limiting decision that they made, not because of the nature of life. For instance a person might make the limiting decision that there’s not enough to go around, and as a result of having made that decision, they always find themselves in financial difficulty. The unconscious mind is invested in proving that our limiting decisions are true, which is the reason that people keep finding themselves in the same kind of life patterns over and over again, even when they know better. From what you’ve previously told me, your parents have locked themselves into a very limited and controlling way of living their lives, in which they don’t allow anything in that doesn’t fit what they are used to. And by doing this, they are holding in place their unhappiness. And then they are expecting their children to compensate for that.
This is most likely a pattern for your family that has been going on for generations, and keeps perpetrating the idea that suffering and sacrifice are necessary. It is representing a paradigm of reality that life is about suffering. And now, as an adult, you are attracting into your life similar kinds of people, so you can play the same role in relation to them. You taking on other people’s suffering, in order to relieve them of it, is reinforcing this mistaken idea. It is not helping. It’s coming from a limiting decision in you. But you coming into joy and working on your own life, and clearing these issues for yourself, and getting into a place of joy and happiness, and not taking on suffering — is representing a paradigm of reality that is helpful for all of those around you.
*Limiting decision: A decision made in early childhood that is some form of that life doesn’t work, and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you — such as “I am powerless,” “bad,” “without value;” or “The world is a dangerous place,” “People can’t be trusted,” and so on.
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
This question is from Laura in Encinitas, in the process of her TimeLine Session with Jane:
Laura: What if in 5 years, my boyfriend decides he’s done with me? Then I’ll be single and 47. My fear is that then that will happen again, and again, and again with all of my relationships with men after that. I’ll be good enough for a while until they get sick of me.
It is similar to how my father treated my mother. My mother always put a lot of energy into looking good for him, but he never noticed her. When the family went to a restaurant together, he wouldn’t pay attention to her or to me, but his attention was, instead, on blatantly flirting with the waitress. And the message was, “he’s a man, so he can do whatever he wants to.”
Jane: The way you interpreted this, then as a child and now, has to the with limiting decisions you made, which had to do with your father having all of the power and value; and you and your mother having none and being valueless. But how you interpreted it wasn’t in reality.
Since your father was making such a big effort to make himself appear to be so important and have the power, no doubt he was compensating for a limiting decision in himself, something along the lines that he doesn’t have power and value. And so he was behaving the way he was, not for the thing itself, but for the symbolism of it. He’s trying to feel like a man, basically. And the only reason a person has to do something like that to feel like a man is when they don’t really feel like a man. He’s trying to compensate for an unhealed issue.
So it’s not about the girl that he’s flirting with. It’s not about any of it. It’s really about that there are unhealed issues in him that he’s not dealing with or doesn’t know how to. And in truth what he is doing is as painful for him on a soul level, as it is for his wife and children, because he’s essentially betraying himself. When a person does something like that, he is reinforcing the limiting decision, even though it feels to him that he’s compensating for it.
The reason it’s such a big issue for you, is because when you have a limiting decision such as men can’t be trusted, to you that’s the way men are, and you then believe you have no choice about men. And so then you’re a part of the problem, and when you clear it you’ll be a part of the solution. By the fact that you made this limiting decision, you’re holding in place that reality just as much as the man who is in the heart of the dynamics of it. Both are holding in place an untruth.
There’s a really big difference between interpreting this as this is just the nature of men, all they care about is their genitals — and realizing that that’s not what feeds this. The source of it, for those who have this unhealed issue, is a deep pain that they’re not powerful, or they’re not good enough as a man. But, instead, you saw them as having the power, which is the illusion they’re trying to present in order to compensate for feeling powerless. As soon as you realize that it’s not that they have power when they do whatever the behavior is, it’s that they feel powerless, then it puts you out of the position of feeling powerless in relation to them.
*Limiting decision: A decision made in early childhood that is some form of that life doesn’t work, and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you — such as “I am powerless,” “bad,” “without value;” or “The world is a dangerous place,” “People can’t be trusted,” and so on.
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
From Ginger in San Marcos. (I never use people’s real names.)
Ginger: In your newsletter, you brought up self-interest and how people immersed in fundamental, repressive religious dogma, with no legitimate outlet for human desires, may act out inappropriately. I have a dear friend, who recently became very active in a church. I sent her an invitation for a new thought series and received the following preachy email. I would love to hear your perspective on how to best handle this.
“Please do not send me this kind of information. There isn’t anyone or anything that has the power to ‘connect with your soul’ other than Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. The New Age has really gotten a hold of many. And sadly, they are deceived about the truth. I pray you would flee from these sorts of things, and find your true worth and purpose in life is for the ONE who made us. I encourage you (because I care and you are my friend) to read your bible, begin with the book of John. Only there you will hear the truth, the word of God.”
I feel attacked, judged and hurt, although I love her and want the best for her. I am feeling that this friend may have moved into a new vibration that doesn’t support the energy I want around me. It seems a shame to throw this friendship away if some clear communication can resolve it.
Jane: The energy behind your friend’s email seems to be coming from fear and anger — both in relation to what you might be representing to her that has the potential of influencing her, and also coming from limiting decisions in her that are causing her to take such a blind stand on concepts that don’t appear to be something she is really coming into her own experience with. The issue is not the content of what she is saying, but the invulnerable and separating way she is saying it. When a person is taking a ridged stand on concepts around which to orient reality that are based on a fixed source outside of themselves (usually some written document or some central charismatic leader), rather than being grounded in their own experience, there is no way to relate to them about it. Instead there is a separating wall, based on fear.
Fundamentalism is about not trusting your own experience of reality. One of the reasons people gravitate toward fundamentalism is it gives them the sense that if they join it, they can be identified with a powerful authority — in this case the word of God. So a person, for example, that has made the limiting decision that they are powerless, or they can’t trust their perception of reality, or they are inherently bad, could gravitate toward some external symbol of authority and righteousness that can’t be questioned because it is seen as the word of God. And that way they don’t have to deal with their own limiting decisions, and they don’t have to build up their own strength and personal empowerment. But instead they are building up a separation between themselves, reality, and other people. Separation leads to mistrust, and mistrust leads to fear. The unspoken demand is you have to give up your own perception of reality to their control, as an agent of the only source of truth.
There are three choices I see that you have in relation to how to respond to your friend. One is to join her in her separated place, which is inherently against anyone who doesn’t agree with her stance — which clearly is not a choice you wish to make. Another is to be at odds with her. You would only make this choice if you are not secure in your own perception of reality, because you would see her as a threat, which is how she appears to be viewing you. Or, you can relate to her beyond her defenses to where and who she really is, which she may or may not be open to.
It appears to me that your friend is in a major power-struggle to hold her perspective on reality in place. And the question is whether you are going to let that define your reality or not. She is reflecting a fearful, separating, and conflicting perception of reality, in which there is a power-struggle going on. Are you going to step into the fear and separation and power-struggle, where you and your friend are at odds with each other — or are you going to stay in a heart-connected place, and relate from there to who your friend really is?
You may be right that she has stepped out of a vibration you can relate to, but it won’t hurt to practice relating to her from your own defining of reality and see what happens.
I also suggest you upfront acknowledge that you are both coming from perspectives that are different from each other’s, to just make clear where you are. And make an agreement to not try to convince each other of your points-of-view on religion.
