[davidk]

OK.
Good post, even though I wasn't sure if you really got around to answering the question. You kinda said God's being personal didn't seem to make much sense in some ways but then came around and saw that His being personal did seem to make some sense in others.

It seems that the basic answer we need is to: A. God, the personal (mind/spirit) origin of all else, objectively exists; or B. He doesn't exist. ( the impersonal [mass/motion/energy/force] is the origin of all else)

Which of these two (A or B ) is the reality? It's how we determine the answer that reflects how it is that we approach truth and in "being sure that what we think we know of the world is correct." 'Cause the answer changes everything in the area of knowledge and morals and in the whole of life.

This post has been edited by davidk: 05 April 2009 - 11:45 PM

[billmc]

davidk, on Apr 5 2009, 11:42 PM, said:

It seems that the basic answer we need is to: A. God, the personal (mind/spirit) origin of all else, objectively exists; or B. He doesn't exist. ( the impersonal [mass/motion/energy/force] is the origin of all else)

Davidk, I'm not afraid of the answer, my friend, and I'm not afraid to answer; it's just that I'm not entirely comfortable with the way the questions is phrased. Nothing against you, I hear the question phrased this way ALOT.

God. "Objectively exist." I believe God exist. God is real to me. I have faith in God. But to say that God "objectively exists" changes God into an "object" and I just don't think that is the case. I don't think of God as an object, especially as "someone" or "something" that we can observe objectively. IMO, God always invites us into subjective experience. To treat God as an object outside of reality, to me, misses the point.

It is like two fish swimming in the ocean, having a philosophical conversation. One fish says to the other, "Do you think that Water exists?" The other replies, "Well, our fish culture and religion tells us Water exists and that if we do the right things or believe in Water, Water will reveal himself to us. Water is the biggest fish ever." The first fish responds, "Frankly, I don't believe Water exists. I've never seen it. Besides, my cousin got ate by a shark last week. If Water truly existed, he wouldn't have let that happen."

What both these fish don't understand is that they were born in Water. Water has been around them all their lives. They live in water. They even breathe water. They will die in Water. Water, for them, has always been there. And because it has always been there, they are oblivious to it's presence. One disbelieves in Water because he's never seen it and he expects that Water would protect him from all harm. The other believes in Water, but he views it objectively, as if Water were another fish instead of his very environment.

Now, all analogies fall short. Even in this "fish tale", the Water in which, according to the apostle Paul, "we live, and move, and have our being" doesn't really express a personality, yet it is personal because each fish is breathing and living in it all the time.

So I think there is a danger, or at least a short-sightedness, when we try to turn God into a human. It is like the fish thinking that Water is objectively the biggest fish in the world, a fish which he has never seen. In the fish world, both fish are surrounded by Water. Water, for them, is omnipresent. But they experience Water subjectively, as the Life in which they exist. They aren't even aware of it. But, yes, Water exists.

I think God is much the same way. To speak of God as a human is the best we can do because we envision God in our own image. But I don't think God is a man. God is spirit - breath - having something akin to personality, but not, strictly speaking, a person.

Does that help? Or does it muddy things even further?

bill

[JosephM]

Bill,

Most excellent post....
It seems there are always those who llive within a box and try keep us in their box also.
Kudos to you.

Joseph

This post has been edited by JosephM: 06 April 2009 - 08:01 AM

[billmc]

A little more God-talk...

Marcus Borg, a popular liberal theologian, says, “If horses had gods, they would look like horses.”

I think there is a lot of truth in that statement. When we talk about or conceptualize God, we are limited to our own human language and conceptions. We have no “higher language” available to us, we have to rely on the tools that we do have. So we do the best that we can but we can’t help but anthropomorphize God when we speak of him/her/it. Some say, of course, that God and the spiritual is better described with symbols and metaphors. This is probably the case. But even symbols and metaphors require interpretation if they are to mean anything to us. And interpretation always begins with presuppositions about what we already believe to be true.

This doesn’t, I believe, leave us in a “no man’s land” where we cannot speak of God. If God is, and this is my suspicion, ultimate reality, then we must speak of God. Unlike the humanists, I do think that we need to look to something or Someone “higher than ourselves” for answers of meaning and purpose. So we must speak of God, but we must remind ourselves of our limitations of language and conceptualization when we do so.

And this is where I disagree with the conservative. The conservative would say that the God is God’s revelation of himself IN HIS WORDS, not human conceptions of God in human words. So some of them take it literally that God has eyes, hands, feet, a throne, etc. Where the fish in my “fish tale” thought of Water as a bigger, more powerful unseen fish, the conservative thinks of God as a bigger, more powerful unseen human. For the conservative, the central question is not “how is humanity like God”, but “how is God like humans?” And when we make God a human, we limit him in our perceptions just as a fish would make Water another fish.

So while we must talk of the reality of God, we need to be humble in doing so, realizing that God is not us. And, IMO, this applies to Jesus also. When the council of Nicea changed Jesus from “the son of God” to “God the Son”, they turned a fish into water. As a result, Jesus can no longer be followed (for whom amongst us is God), he can only be believed in or worshipped. This, again IMO, is a travesty. Jesus, for conservatives and many progressives alike, is not human. He is either God in a man-suit or he is a hybrid of God and man which, still, is not human. Any man who is God is not a man. It is that simple. And that is where I think Paul’s Christ is a significant departure from Jesus of Nazareth. The two seem to have little to do with each other. Paul’s central doctrine is not about following Jesus’ teachings as a man, but about believing in and worshipping Christ as God. Two different things in my book.

Modern Christianity says that fish is Water and that Water is a fish. It says that Jesus is God and that God is Jesus. In doing so, I think we lose our understanding of both.

bill

[billmc]

wayfarer2k, on Apr 6 2009, 08:16 AM, said:

The conservative would say that the God is God’s revelation of himself IN HIS WORDS, not human conceptions of God in human words.

Correction: The conservative would say that the BIBLE is God’s revelation of himself IN HIS WORDS, not human conceptions of God in human words.

[David]

Bill,

Very good series of posts. You start where you needed to start: “I'm not entirely comfortable with the way the question is phrased.” Your discomfort is elemental and foundational. DavidK’s questions imply the answers he needs to hear. Central to his concern is the meaning of “existence”. The fish/water analogy was a great response. I would just add that I am uncomfortable with “yes, water exists” if you use the concept of existence with the common understanding of “not existing”. But like Jesus you recognized the need to go to metaphor or parable in order to respond to the literalistic question. I like your statement: "When we talk about or conceptualize God, we are limited to our own human language and conceptions. We have no “higher language” available to us, we have to rely on the tools that we do have." DavidK is limited to the tools he is using. His questions and the necessary answers to those questions are limited by those tools. You have looked for and found the tools that Jesus used.

I had thought (and still think) that there was not much more to discuss with DavidK but I am impressed with your approach which is very much true to Progressive Christianity. Thanks for that.

David

This post has been edited by David: 06 April 2009 - 09:33 AM

[billmc]

David, on Apr 6 2009, 09:22 AM, said:

Very good series of posts. You start where you needed to start: “I'm not entirely comfortable with the way the question is phrased.” Your discomfort is elemental and foundational. DavidK’s questions imply the answers he needs to hear. Central to his concern is the meaning of “existence”. The fish/water analogy was a great response. I would just add that I am uncomfortable with “yes, water exists” if you use the concept of existence with the common understanding of “not existing”. But like Jesus you recognized the need to go to metaphor or parable in order to respond to the literalistic question. I like your statement: "When we talk about or conceptualize God, we are limited to our own human language and conceptions. We have no “higher language” available to us, we have to rely on the tools that we do have." DavidK is limited to the tools he is using. His questions and the necessary answers to those questions are limited by those tools. You have looked for and found the tools that Jesus used.

Thanks for the feedback, David. I consider Davidk to be a friend. We've had our agreements and our disagreements, but he has been cordial with me and has treated me like a brother. So I'm trying to keep the lines of communication open with him, not because I'm trying to convert or deconvert him to anything, but because I do believe that we are in this "water" together and, on some level, we really are talking about the same Reality. We may or may not see it the same way, but the Reality is there nonetheless.

I agree with what you said about "existence". Someone I read a couple years ago (sorry, I can't remember who) said something to this effect: "If we are asking whether or not God exists, then it is not really God that we are speaking of." I think what this person was alluding to is that God is existence itself or what some call "the ground of all Being." I'm still trying to wrap my head around that though I think my heart embraces it.

But, in my past experiences, God was, put crassly, an old man up in the sky who was watching what was going on down here, keeping records of sins, unapproachable, and sometimes breaking the laws of his universe in order to do miracles or effect his will. Again, supernatural theism. I'm not so foolish as to tell Davidk that the Bible doesn't contain supernatural theism, because it does. But it isn't the ONLY concept of God in the Bible or in cultural history and these other conceptions bear looking at. After all, the Bible says that God is spirit and that God is love. Love is not a person, but it is personal. Spirit is not, literally speaking, a person, but it is enveloping and influencial. When it comes to things like love and spirit, parables and metaphors do better, not as explanations, but as demonstrations than propositional statements do.

On another progressive forum where I'm active, there is a discussion about "militant atheists." What I find interesting about the militant atheists is this: they DON'T BELIEVE in the same exact kind of God that the conservatives DO BELIEVE in. Their arguments against God doesn't really come down to arguments against spirituality or love or compassion, just against the supernatural theistic view of God that doesn't hold up well against our modern or postmodern worldview of how the universe works or what gives meaning and purpose to our lives. So when they exclaim, "I don't believe that God exists!", it is, more often than not, the anthropomorphic concept of God that they don't believe in. These folks may be "militant atheists", but I suspect that deep down many of them had their supernatural theism shattered and they have no other ideas, concepts, images, or metaphors of God to put in that place. This is why I think progressive Christianity has something to offer. We don't have to make truth claims and go around proving everyone wrong. All we have to ask is, "Have you ever considered...?" That, to me, is the openness of PC.

bill

[David]

Well said.

Thanks,
David

[davidk]

It is how we approach truth and being sure that what we think we know of the world is correct. Like: God objectively exists, in contrast to His not existing. Because which of these two are the reality changes everything in the area of knowledge and morals and in the whole of life that addresses Bill's questions of why we're here, what's wrong, and what's the meaning to it all.

My statement does not imply changing God into an object outside of reality or anthropomorphising Him or that you should respond the way I want you to, nor is there implication of making God like Humans rather than understanding how is man like God, nor did I make any reference implied or otherwise about Jesus Christ.

My statement only said that our approach to things like: "God objectively exists, in contrast to His not existing.", will demonstrate the method by how we approach the truth and in being sure what we think we know of the world is correct.

I'm not implying a correct answer, just that there should be a realization that one must understand. Either response, as well as their methodologies, made about "God objectively exists, in contrast to His not existing." is in direct opposition to the other. God either objectively exists, or he doesn't. Very basic.

[billmc]

davidk, on Apr 6 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

God either objectively exists, or he doesn't. Very basic.

Okay, let me come at this from another approach, even a "conservative" approach. If God "objectively exists", then there is no need for faith. I can email you a picture of my cat and, thereby, prove to you that my cat exists. It would require no faith on your part, then, to agree with me that my cat "objectively exists."

But God is not subject to this kind of proof. On some level, relating to God takes faith. Therefore, while I agree with you that God exists, I don't agree that he objectively does so nor do I see God through a supernatural theistic framework.

Okay, we may be talking past each other here, so, if it's okay with you. Let's move on...

God exists. We both agree.

What is your next point or consideration?

bill

[davidk]

That's right. If God objectively exists, there is no need for faith in order for Him to.

A. He objectivly exists, unaffected by any of our individual reflections or feelings or faith, in contrast to B: His not existing.

It is true that it is the relating to God that takes our faith.

My statement is really about how we approach truth and being sure of what we think we know of the world is correct, Because if anything is true -A, then its opposite, B, is not true. This form of reasoning is basic logic in man's search of the truth.

It is which of these two are the reality changes everything in the area of the answers we get to your questions of why we're here, what's wrong, and what's the meaning to it all.

[JosephM]

davidk, on Apr 6 2009, 09:17 PM, said:

That's right. If God objectively exists, there is no need for faith in order for Him to.

A. He objectivly exists, unaffected by any of our individual reflections or feelings or faith, in contrast to B: His not existing.

It is true that it is the relating to God that takes our faith.

My statement is really about how we approach truth and being sure of what we think we know of the world is correct, Because if anything is true -A, then its opposite, B, is not true. This form of reasoning is basic logic in man's search of the truth.

It is which of these two are the reality changes everything in the area of the answers we get to your questions of why we're here, what's wrong, and what's the meaning to it all.

These are not opposites as you have twisted Bill's words. He never agreed God objectively exists and neither did he say God didn't exist. He said I agree that God exists. The opposite being God doesn't exist. You have inserted the word "objectively" and then reasoned by your logic that you stated opposites.

Joseph

[billmc]

davidk, on Apr 6 2009, 08:17 PM, said:

That's right. If God objectively exists, there is no need for faith in order for Him to.

A. He objectivly exists, unaffected by any of our individual reflections or feelings or faith, in contrast to B: His not existing.

It is true that it is the relating to God that takes our faith.

My statement is really about how we approach truth and being sure of what we think we know of the world is correct, Because if anything is true -A, then its opposite, B, is not true. This form of reasoning is basic logic in man's search of the truth.

It is which of these two are the reality changes everything in the area of the answers we get to your questions of why we're here, what's wrong, and what's the meaning to it all.

Well, Davidk, I've already said that, yes, it's my conviction that God exists. God is, for me, ultimate Reality. So it makes no sense to say that Reality doesn't exist because the search for truth IS the search for reality, for what is real. Behind that search is, I believe, God.

But I still think that you are coming at truth from an unhelpful forensic standpoint. You are using terms such as "approaching truth", "being sure", "correct", "opposite", terms that are black and white with no shades of gray and no room for further searching or understanding. I don't think truth is quite so...accomodating...to your paradigm, my friend.

You seem to be putting forth an understanding of truth that is very modern, very much a part of the Enlightenment which says that the essential nature of truth is propositional - that truth must always be confined to the legalistic realm of verifiable/not verifiable; true/false; correct/incorrect, etc. Granted, one can view truth this way, but it is rather shortsighted.

Truth is, IMO, a much richer concept. While not sidelining the facet of truth that pertains to verfiability, there is another expression of truth that is more related to relationship, to faithfulness, to meaning and purpose.

For instance, if I asked you if you were being true to your spouse, what does this mean? It means much more than true/false, correct/incorrect. It means putting her interests above your own, being faithful to your relationship to her, being dependable, much as a ruler or wall could be called "true". It is right relationship to other things and people, not just judicial terms by which we make decisive judgments.

I don't know whether this distinction is important to you or not, but it is to me. So if someone asks me if I believe that the Bible is true and I reply, "yes", I am not saying that I think that everything in the Bible really happened or that everything in the Bible is moral or correct or verifiable. I am saying that I think the Bible shows us the Divine/human relationship and how we experience that relationship to be "true" or faithful or meaningful or fulfilling.

To me, the problem with conservative theology is that it is too myopic. It tries to reduce rich concepts and multi-faceted ideas down to one, and only one, meaning. It does this with "truth". It does this with Jesus' death. It does this with "heaven". It does this with "hell." Conservative theology tries so hard to make everything fit into nice, neat little boxes that it amputates both God and humans alike. The Bible is not a monolith. Neither is truth. None of us observe truth objectively. The nature of truth is that it invites us, not to observe it from outside, but to enter into it. When we do, it changes us.

Truth in the forensic context is uninvolved, safe, unpassionate, distant, untransformative, and, because it is detached, ultimately meaningless.
But truth in the relational context is inviting, risky, passionate, compelling, life-changing, and, because we become part of it, meaningful.

bill

[billmc]

JosephM, on Apr 6 2009, 09:13 PM, said:

These are not opposites as you have twisted Bill's words. He never agreed God objectively exists and neither did he say God didn't exist. He said I agree that God exists. The opposite being God doesn't exist. You have inserted the word "objectively" and then reasoned by your logic that you stated opposites.

Joseph

You're right, Joseph, I didn't say that I agreed with Davidk that God "objectively exists", because I don't phrase it that way. I was just trying to get beyond the point that God exists so that our conversation could proceed.

bill

[JosephM]

Davidk,

The opposite of God objectively exists is God subjectively exists. English 101 - reference most any American dictionary and you will find that objectively and subjectively are 'antonym's' which is derived from a Greek word meaning 'a word having a meaning opposite to that of another word'. I assumed you know this but wanted to leave no doubt.

Now if you want to communicate and reason with procedural logic, instead of saying "God either objectively exists, or he doesn't. Very basic." , lets ask...

"Does God exist objectively or does God exist subjectively"

My experience indicates that God exists subjectively. Why? Because God is not visible as an object but rather seen as taking place in my mind rather than the external world. God is particular to a given person; personal and a subjective experience. If it were not so then God would be a material object or based on observable phenomena; presented factually so that we could all be in agreement rather than each having his/her own opinion based upon subjective feelings or intuition, not upon observation or reasoning, which can be influenced by preconception.

It seems to me that what each sees of God results from our personal mindset or experience, arising from perceptive mental conditions within the brain and not necessarily from external stimuli. Does this mean that God doesn't exist or is less real? No. On the contrary, it makes God more personal when one realizes God's presence. In my view, as sentient beings we can only experience God in this subjective, sentient way.

You may ask, Why doesn't everyone realize this or have these strong subjective experiences of God? It seems to me that for the most part, we are inhibited by our self making an idol of God by trying to make him objective through philosophy and theology to fit into an image.

Just something for you, Davidk. to reconsider your logic and view a different perspective so we can , as Bill says, move on.

Love Joseph

[billmc]

JosephM, on Apr 7 2009, 08:53 AM, said:

"Does God exist objectively or does God exist subjectively"

Great post, Joseph.

I think you clarified the point that I was trying to make better than I could.

Nevertheless, and never missing an opportunity to put my foot in my mouth, I'd like to add a little bit more. I do think that God exists and that God is not an invention of the human mind and/or communal consciousness. But I am quick to say that, to me, this is a matter of faith or assumption, not something that I can imperically prove.

But I have to add, as I was trying to say before, that we don't experience God objectively, we experience God subjectively. We must always interpret our images, concepts, and experiences of God.

Now, it is true that, in the Bible, people claimed what might be called "objective proof" - the burning bush, shekinah glory in the temple, pillar of cloud by day, pillar of fire by night, audible voice, visions, and even the person of Jesus. But all of these "objective" manifestations caused people to enter into subjective relationship.

So the problem I see with the claim of "objectively exist" is that there is no way to get around that fact that objects must be interpreted subjectively if they are to mean anything to us. We can never remove ourselves completely from the equation. I think God designed it that way.

That is why I am uncomfortable with Davidk's phraseology. If God is, in some sense, love and spirit, then love and spirit are not things that "objectively exist." Surely they exist. But they are not known or experienced as objects, they are known and experienced subjectively in relationship.

Thanks for your input.

bill

PS - I know Davidk is interested in the subject of epistomology also. So I'd also like to say that I feel the same way about "truth", it does not "objectively exist", it is know and experienced through relationship. Hopefully, this will head off any misconceptions.

This post has been edited by wayfarer2k: 07 April 2009 - 09:20 AM

[davidk]

With all due respect, gentlemen, either God exists in objective reality, which is that God exists without the distortion of personal feelings or prejudices; or He does not exist.

If God does not exist in objective reality, then God is only a construct of man's imagination, purely subjective, fantasy; and what God man believes in is a lie.

[billmc]

davidk, on Apr 8 2009, 12:05 PM, said:

With all due respect, gentlemen, either God exists in objective reality, which is that God exists without the distortion of personal feelings or prejudices; or He does not exist.

If God does not exist in objective reality, then God is only a construct of man's imagination, purely subjective, fantasy; and what God man believes in is a lie.

Okay, Davidk, you've made your point. Thanks for the conversation.

bill

This post has been edited by wayfarer2k: 08 April 2009 - 02:06 PM

[JosephM]

davidk, on Apr 8 2009, 01:05 PM, said:

With all due respect, gentlemen, either God exists in objective reality, which is that God exists without the distortion of personal feelings or prejudices; or He does not exist.

If God does not exist in objective reality, then God is only a construct of man's imagination, purely subjective, fantasy; and what God man believes in is a lie.

Davidk,

Thanks for the "gentlemen" consideration. Come on my friend, get over it , the only way you know God, 'as a man', is that God exists through your mind and senses and that would be subjectively. You are no different than I. As Bill said, and with all due respect, thanks for the conversation.

Love Joseph

[minsocal]

JosephM, on Apr 8 2009, 03:12 PM, said:

Davidk,

Thanks for the "gentlemen" consideration. Come on my friend, get over it , the only way you know God, 'as a man', is that God exists through your mind and senses and that would be subjectively. You are no different than I. As Bill said, and with all due respect, thanks for the conversation.

Love Joseph

Ohh ... so that's what "thanks for the converstion means". Never heard the term before. It has been directed towards me and I'll now take it in your context.