Jump to content

A Question By A Newcomer


Rodge

Recommended Posts

I think we are all basically saying the same thing, but are getting lost in the narrow meanings of words. Rodge I like referring to individuals as unit consciousness, which can also be termed soul or Divinity within, and none of these words have a definite definition, but the meanings vary depending on the individual or time of day. I use the term Father, God, but also use the ocean of pure consciousness depending on what I am trying to express and which is easier for the subject being addressed . Bill for me, the historical Jesus does not hold that much importance so I don't really take part in those discussions what is important are the lessons that he communicated in his life style, sayings and inner life. I watched Christians tell the stories over and over as selling points expecting good things to happen, but they never or seldom applied the teachings so their consciousness, their awareness did not expand that much.

 

What I like about the parables are the different mental intensities, heights and depths from which they can be viewed in our existence and it seems our inner source of fulfillment and serenity is discovered within them, hidden under the mundane energies of our everyday activities. Our thoughts being an inner undertaking that is influenced by our involvement in life and our reactions to it where the grosser levels of mental activity are stronger on the physical plane than the subtle layers underneath and refuse to let the subtle thoughts enter our consciousness. It is like being at a bar with blaring music, loud talking and a lot of background commotion where we have to raise our voices to be heard. The average levels of thinking have to become loud and unpleasant in order to be experienced; therefore, the inner source of our enjoyment, our subtle thoughts continue to be concealed and avoided as being mysterious. It is underneath the outer layer of our existence where I find the reality of life, the eternal truth and absolute freedom that I am searching for and even if we are not aware of it, it somehow radiates out through the confusion. I feel Jesus is a great guide for my inner exploration beyond the mind, but I acknowledge that their are so many guides on so many levels that one can learn from and many find their way without Jesus.

 

The world rotates every 24 hours and revolves around the sun every year and stories about Jesus continue to draw our attention, but it is all external going around and around. The circumference seems to be constantly moving with activity, but deep within the center it all stops and relaxes in the peace and love that is everywhere. To me that is the proof, the core to what life is all about. Societies, cultures and communities raise great monuments, the grandest symbols to what their cultures value most highly and I respect and enjoy them as do others and this goes for the stories about Jesus. In religion it seems the symbols of God and Truth have become institutionalized which is good for a few, but for most of us it has only fossilized Truth and God so they don't live on their own; consequently, followers think they have to defend religion beating a dead horse into the ground.

 

I feel as a Christian we are lucky to have a scripture that is not so much acting on facts, but as a record directing us inward to an experience with Christ that is beyond the mind. It starts out as a hypothesis that needs to be substantiated in the laboratory of our mind and if peace comes around, our intuition illuminates the path to new wisdom and understanding in the soul. We are not able to control everything that goes on outside so that is not where misery begins because it is an inside job where we control what goes on; consequently, the misfortune of life is not what happens to us, but what we let happen inside while we are living. No one can teach us to be spiritual because it grows from the inside similar to a towering tree where we can’t see the roots underground, underneath the surface where we are inspired to stand up and reach for happiness.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soma, thank you for sharing your testimonial to your personal faith. As I have said before here, I think it is important to share our faiths, even if they are different and even if they don't agree with our own.

 

I do have a practical question, however. You refer to "the lessons that he [Jesus] communicated in his life style, sayings and inner life." How do you go about separating that from the ability of witnesses to comprehend it and the tendency of the growing church to interpret and modify it? And a related question: How can we know what anyone's "inner life" is like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rodge, you said, "You (BillMc) suggest that our self-consciousness must be secondary to others. I disagree, because that suggests that we need not respect our own self-consciousness." If that's how you heard it, that is not what I meant. To put it more simply, I think it is more important to follow Jesus' teachings than to worship Jesus. Worshipping Jesus is to admire and praise his ego (which we mainly see in the gospel of John) where Jesus speaks in very lofty terms about who he is. Following Jesus is to take his teachings to heart and to prove them out, regardless of our "Christology."

 

Similarly, and what I was trying to say, is that I think it is more important that we love and serve others rather than going around talking about how holy we are or how centered we are or how "at oneness" we are. There is, IMO, a proper place for these assessments of our ego, but I think it is more beneficial to us and our world if we do good works rather than just toot our horns about how spiritual we feel.

 

Again, just my opinion.

 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rodge, the caricature of the Buddha on the mountaintop illustrates my point. He sits on the very top of the mountain in a lotus position, and, as Soma says, "relaxes in the peace and love that is everywhere". This is, no doubt, a very good subjective experience for him. But he seems to be completely unaware of or unconcerned about all the people below who are hungry, thirsty, in poverty, oppressed, enslaved, sick, dying, and suffering. He sits on the mountaintop, perhaps experiencing a sort of oneness on a spiritual level, but completely detached from the rest of humanity on a social or physical level. "He got his", as the saying goes. And as long as "he got his", what does the rest of the world matter?

 

From my point-of-view, he is so wrapped up in his own ego-trip that he is "so heavenly minded that he is no earthly good." This is why Buddhism holds little attraction for me. It is not, for me, a matter of making it to heaven. I don't even believe in going to heaven. It is a matter of living a wise and compassionate life while we are here on earth in community. And I don't find that sitting alone on a mountaintop is wise, compassionate, or communal.

 

The metaphorical meaning of the Incarnation, for me, is that God comes down from the mountaintop in order to teach us and show us how to be wise, compassionate, and communal.

 

Another distinguishing aspect of PC, for me, is that my "inner life" is more Stoic in nature than in Eastern philosophy. Rather than seeing the mind as an enemy, as Eastern philosophy tends to do, I see it as a gift of God that we can use to understand ourselves, our world, and which enables us to reflect upon our lives as necessary in order to make course corrections.

Edited by BillM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BillM,

 

First, I think it is obvious, on its face, that the author of John brings a strong philosophical/religious bias to his writings, which raises questions about the reliability of his writings as factual historical accounts. I think you and I agree about this.

 

Second, it seems hard to deny repeated evidence in the Synoptic Gospels that Jesus saw his mission as evangelical, that his focus was on humans in interactions with other humans. Of course, one could argue that this was what the disciples saw and what they were capable of understanding and what motivated them, so of course that's how they reported it. But the very nature of inner life makes it difficult if not impossible to have any firm idea about the nature of Jesus's inner life. So for one, like the Buddha, to focus on inner life is a legitimate philosophical approach, but trying to base it on Jesus seems like a stretch. At least, I suspect that's how we both see testimonials like Soma's. Not to say that his experience is wrong, just to say that it raises questions about in what sense it is really Christian.

 

Finally, regarding the implications of self-consciousness, I appreciate your clarification and I suspect that, here again, we are in agreement. Personally, I find it more useful to phrase the Golden Rule as "respect others as you respect yourself." I think that this approach echoes so strongly through the Synoptic Gospels that there is a high likelihood that it is an authentic message from Jesus. Such a strong likelihood, in fact, that any words of self-superiority or self-importance attributed to Jesus are highly suspect. I think that there is convincing evidence that Jesus called his listeners to be aware of and cherish their own blessing of spirituality, adding that part of respecting their own gift was recognizing the same gift in all others, which requires everyone to be actively responsive to the needs of others.

 

Although we seems to be in agreement on many points, I think that each person's subjective religious truth is unique, as each person's body and experiences are unique. This is the failing of appeals that we should be loyal to "Faith." What faith? There is no single faith; there are as many faiths as there are people. So you and I are bound to disagree on some points, even in the context of general agreement. In this case, I have trouble with this that you wrote: "The metaphorical meaning of the Incarnation, for me, is that God comes down. . ." I don't challenge your metaphorical interpretation. But incarnation makes no sense to me, literally or metaphorically, because I am unable to make assumptions regarding the meaning of "God." "God comes down" is a very theistic phrasing, and theism makes no sense to me. I find it easier to comprehend formulations like "God is the force of love that exists within every atom." I can grasp the meaning of that assertion more easily than I can grasp incarnation. But what does it really mean to say that everything is everything? What would be different if love did not exist in every atom? How can the nature of nature be tested if there is no non-nature? In the end, to me, there is no concept of "God" that can be shown to be universally true, even if various concepts are personally true.

 

Still, overall, I am pleased to see that we agree on so much.

Edited by Rodge
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BillM, the concept of worshiping Jesus is poorly supported by scripture. We are in agreement. I can see the argument, but I've never felt comfortable with it. It just doesn't ring true for me. Jesus presents himself as a signpost to a worthy object of worship. My favorite Jesus movie adaptation of the musical Jesus Christ Superstar. It is a film based on the perspective of a Gospel of Judas. It's fanciful for sure, but there's something about it that is compelling to me. In it, Jesus' followers worship him; whereas, Judas sees Jesus as an intimate friend of whom he is both enamored and deeply concerned. He does not recognize his unique divinity. But his human presence is powerful. There is something about him that makes people want to worship him. Judas and Mary sing "I don't know how to love him. I don't know why he moves me. He's a man. He's just a man. He's not a king. He's just the same as anyone I know. He scares me so." And yet they cannot deny his sway over there lives.

 

A theme of the film is that Jesus is greatly misunderstood by his followers. They worship him, and his response is a paraphrase of his mourning for Jerusalem and of his assertion that his way is not a way of victory in the sense that they are expect but of suffering and death. There is scriptural support for this perspective. The problem with the Gospels is that Jesus was likely misunderstood and the Gospel writers might be included in this misunderstanding which brings their stories into question. A Gospel is not a history, it is a persuasive form. Each of the writers is trying to persuade a particular target audience of different points. Matthew, for example, is trying to persuade the Jews (exclusively) that Jesus is the new Moses with a new law.

 

 

Rodge, you said, " But I disagree when any individual, or the web site's goals, suggest that God of a certain nature exists, because such assertions cannot be supported. " You are ever making a differentiation between personal faith witness (which is therefore not admissible as tenant of a PC website ) and verifiable "fact". The truth, as I see it, is that every aspect of any faith/religion is personal. If you insist on a objective reality which can be proven then you've eliminated the possibility of faith. We're all here with some form of faith. Faith that God doesn't exist. Faith that God does exist. Faith that doing good in the world is good for the world and for ourselves. What is good? Our country cannot even agree on what is good. It's all subjective, and all requires a decision to believe. Even science (go ahead and crucify me) requires faith. I'm trusting the scientific method to tell me something that I cannot personally verify. I can read it and choose to believe it...or not. Science evolves. It both verifies and disproves itself.

 

I confess that I sometimes make an assertion that I'm not 100% convinced of, and that's the reason I write it here; so that I can work it out. So my assertion here is that there is no such thing as a Christianity that relies solely on verifiable truth. What say you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rodge, we do seem to agree on many points. I don't hold to the doctrine of the Incarnation for the various reasons you have mentioned. But I do think it is a fairly reliable notion that the NT Jews believed in a theistic God "up there" and that, possibly, some (but not all) saw God as descending to earth in the form of Jesus. Personally, I like what the apostle Paul says about this, "God was in Christ..." That is enough for my own Christology. In that sense, I'm a Unitarian. Jesus was a man filled with God.

 

As for God, I'm still rather agnostic about who or what God is. Being human, I can't help but think of God in human terms and concepts. It is like Spong says, "If horses had gods, those gods would be horses." I tend to favor panentheism or process theology. Nevertheless, even these are human constructs of something that doesn't quite fit in our boxes.

 

Knowing that, I would rather say, in such discussions, "Here is what Jesus believed (or taught) about God...does this still ring true for us today? Why or why not?" This helps me avoid the literal trap of saying, "Jesus said XYZ and, therefore, we, too, must believe XYZ." We don't have to. Jesus was a product of his own religion and culture. Does this mean that Jesus was wrong about God or that we need to completely drop our God-language? Not if we are going to be "Christian" enough to still talk about Jesus and what he taught. But if he doesn't matter, then, yes, God-talk isn't necessary. But if so, why call it Christian?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fatherman, you wrote, in response to me: "If you insist on a objective reality which can be proven then you've eliminated the possibility of faith." Wrong. Objective reality has nothing to do with faith. Faith is perhaps the supreme example of subjective reality. Faith is real to each of us. But the word "faith" has no content, nor does its synonym "belief." As you suggest, the meanings attached to "faith" are all over the place. There can be no objective test of such a scattershot group, but that does not make a person's faith any less valid for that person. Here's to faith, and to recognizing that faith is personal and individual, not external and general.

 

With regard to objective truth, let me be clear about what I mean by that. I think the essential characteristic of objective truth is that it can be defined with sufficient specificity that it can be subjected to testing and verification by disinterested parties. That is also valid regarding claims of objective religious activity. One can test an assertion that the Pope operates out of Rome. One can test an assertion that some ideas in later writings of the early church do not appear in earlier wirtings. The characteristic of science is not that it declares absolute "facts," but that it presents claims for testing and validation, with the possibility of making changes, if the evidence requires it. Claims of religious actions can be subjected to that test. Claims of religious experience cannot. Or perhaps I'm wrong. Do you have a claim based on a personal religious experience that can be defined and tested objectively?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BillM, I like the jist of the approach describe as asking, "Here is what Jesus believed (or taught) about God...does this still ring true for us today?" In general, I prefer deflecting from a literal reading that particular words were or were not spoken by Jesus. I prefer asking, "What is the message embedded in the words that caused them to be remember and embraced into the Bible? Is that message still valid today?" I ask this question with the belief that sometimes the words were included because they represent a deep insight into the meaning of human life, and sometimes because they met the advocacy needs of a particular person or group in the emerging church.

 

The term "Christian" is difficult for me, because it presents a problem but I don't know the solution. The word is clearly baed on "Christ," which I think is historically a theistic concept, and more recently seems to mean that Jesus is a bright indicator of Divinity within him. I would agree that Jesus is a bright indicator; I just don't see what it indicates beyond human potential. That said, I can't get used to a more accurate formulation of "Jesusian" or "Jesusite." What's a person to do?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear you, Rodge, and probably share many of your questions and concerns.

 

When I teach Sunday School from time to time (which I don't do much of anymore), I simply can't do "Adult Christian Education" with time, resources, and people that I have. It would be unproductive for me to start class with, "Now, we really have no idea who assembled our Bibles just as they are and to what extent they have been edited and redacted. We have no idea who really wrote the book of Mark, despite that title in your Bibles. And we really don't know if Jesus existed or if he really said any of those Red Letters you have in your Bibles. Nevertheless, let's turn to Mark 8..." :blink:

 

I certainly agree with you that the message is important. But even then, it is a message embedded in its own context and culture and requires translation. Add to that that I'm generally confused about most things anyway and you can see what a hopeless situation it is! So these days I spend far less time "teaching" and just serve where I can. I certainly don't fit with standard Christian orthodoxy, but what's a person to do? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BillM,

 

I haven't taught Sunday School since one year on a 7th grade teaching team decades ago. We're fortunate at our church to have a member who started a twice-monthly class with the best format for a class that I have experienced. For each class, he selects one of Bishop Spong's recent newsletters and hands out copies of it. We then take turns reading paragraphs aloud, and then discussing what we have read. There is no advance reading requirement, so everyone is familiar with the passages being discussed. And the nature of Spong's writing encourages lively discussion. People come and go from meeting to meeting, but naturally the class seems to attract those who are comfortable with Spong's challenges to traditional orthodoxy. Still, often members can question or even disagree with Spong's conclusions about one point or another.

 

Along the way, some class members wondered aloud what it would be like to attend a church service modeled on Spong's ideas. That inspired me to try my hand at writing a service based on my idea of creating a community where a wide variety of personal beliefs would be welcomed without reference to orthodoxy. The result was radical in that there was no worship of Divinity and no promise of God's rewards (or punishments). On the other hand, not saying something is not as radical as it might sound. I still could make use of a sermon based on the Gospel, I just referred to "the author of Mark" and offered the possibility of more than one way to understand a certain passage. I did not have to denounce the idea that a disciple named "Mark" actually wrote it, or say that it was wrong to read a passage literally. It was also possible to sing a theistic hymn with a brief introduction noting that it was the faith statement of the poet who wrote it. Whether or not this experimental service would have been effective is hard for me as the author to judge. I would be willing to share a PDF of it, but I don't know this web site's policy regarding the e-mail addresses of contributors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern physics is approaching the subject of the unified field objectively. The unified level of nature contains the potential and expressed values of natural form. The objective proof is expressed in the language of mathematical relationships between fundamental laws of nature while the subjective experience, which could be an interpretation, opinion or presentation on the subject, is valid for the individual if they have the experience.

The unified field is studied objectively in science and referred to in Christianity subjectively as the Father, God, pure consciousness, love, Absolute, Supreme, First Cause ect,which is beyond our mental comprehension just like the unified field that is being studied objectively. It would have to contain and unite the observer, the observed and the act of observing. Christianity without science refers one to introspection to discover it, the problem is they dictate the truth instead of pointing to it and let people discover or not discover it.

 

Roger you said, “I think that there is convincing evidence that Jesus called his listeners to be aware of and cherish their own blessing of spirituality, adding that part of respecting their own gift was recognizing the same gift in all others, which requires everyone to be actively responsive to the needs of others.” This is what I was referring to with phrases and quotes about the Divinity Within. The image of the Buddha on a mountain top meditating is a good image which also symbolizes the introspection that Jesus was pointing to, but in Asia the Buddhist do large amounts of social service selflessly so the image is not complete. “Love you neighbor as yourself” seems to start with loving the inner self and expressing it externally with your neighbor.

 

“How can we know what anyone's "inner life" is like?” (Roger) We know the fruit that the tree produces. The roots reach deep within while the branches reach for the sky, but the proof is in the action or fruit that is produced. No one can prove God exist, but no one can prove that God does not exist. God is only a word, a sign, a symbol to use to talk about what is beyond the mind. Many people use the word to trick others especially when they pray externally for others to hear, but the proof is in the fruit, the actions that are produced. If people gain strength from meditation, prayer, silence or contemplation internally to serve and help others externally great, it doesn’t matter if there is a God or not. If they use the word God to incite violence, fear, hate and destruction than people need to speak out if they believe in God or not.

 

There are atheists who serve more people and do more good with their humanism than Christians who stand on their soap boxes with tight fist screaming at the top of their lungs. I like the image of the Buddhist meditating on the mountain because it reminds me of the peace inside without this peace I would only be reacting and not serving the needs of others.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

soma, I agree, in general, with all you wrote in your most recent post. Certainty about religious "truths" has done great harm. I just don't understand why you think there must be something beyond our ability to understand, and why you use capital letters to name it. Certainly "the unknown" has meaning, but it is not necessarily a single or unified thing, and does not require capitalization. Similarly, we can admire and respect "nature" without capitalization, or "reality." I would agree that it is a waste of human consciousness to go through life without reflection, and that reflection can deepen our experience. But that doesn't require creeds or philosophical theories. I don't disagree with the fact that you are expressing your personal faith, but your style suggests that you are presenting it as universal truths. The universal truth is that, as you suggest, we can't prove or disprove God. But the corollary is that we can't prove that symbolic "God" points to anything real, or to anything that requires capitalization.

 

As moderator, can you tell me if there is any way I can let folks know my e-mail address without violating your rules?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rodge, if you don't already know, there is a book by Arthur Broadhurst called, "Christian Humanism." Arthur posits that we can be Christians and follow the teachings of Christ without any definitions or concepts of God. As I'm sure you know, for most of the religious world God is a supernatural deity "out there" who controls the world and/or intervenes from time to time according to his will or in answer to prayer. Many recent theologians (Robinson, Spong, Broadhurst) say that it is time for this name and concept to go. Even the 8 Points here, in the last revision, removed many references to God, opening up more universal (?) and inclusive (?) understandings and definitions.

 

I don't think that the theistic God can be proven or unproven. But if the term God is simply a place-holder for our highest human ideals (life, being, love), well, those concepts certainly do exist.

 

The question is, can we or should we attempt to infuse the old word "God" with these superlatives (as Spong advocates). Or should we drop the term altogether, much as we have done with Zeus and Juno? Has God died and should we leave him that way? Or should we resurrect him with new life, new terms, new concepts, and new meanings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BillM,

 

Very thoughtful comments, as usual, and I generally agree. However, I would offer my answer to your pertinent questions: "Has God died and should we leave him that way? Or should we resurrect him with new life, new terms, new concepts, and new meanings?" My response would be to ask, what is the need for "God" OR a replacement concept? What difference does it make, for humankind in general? Clearly a theistic God in its many (sometimes multiple) forms makes a difference as a giver of personal rewards and punishments. But what difference does it make if we think Divinity exists throughout nature, or we don't think that? Does it change nature? Does it change our capability to benefit from human consciousness? The answer to these questions is often a variation on the idea that it fulfills a human need, We need to feel a connection to something larger than ourselves. We need to find the Unity in the chaos that surrounds us. I think it is ironic that liberals blame conservatives for inventing theistic "God" to meet their human needs, while liberals seem to be doing the same thing with talk about "the Sacred and the Oneness and Unity of all life." I applaud the validity of their faith to themselves, but I can't see the validity of even implying that they are onto a universal truth.

(By the way, can you answer my question about sharing my personal e-mailaddress in any way on this site?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rodge, I can't answer your question about sharing your email except as I stated above, via Private Messenger.

 

Back to the topic: For many people (I would say most) there is a NEED for God. As Spong says in one of his books (can't remember which one right now), humanity's belief in and trust in a controlling deity helps us to deal with existential angst - the awareness that we are constantly in danger and are going to die. For the majority of humans who hold to a theistic religion, belief in God provides for their perceived NEED for structure out of life's chaos, morality, comfort that someone is in control, and a promise of an afterlife. Now, having said that, I don't personally have a NEED for those particular things. The laws of nature generally give existence structure, my morality generally comes from my conscience, I seek after truth rather than comfort, and I'm agnostic about an afterlife. But I am, by far, in the minority, especially amongst traditional Christians who believe that God/Christ is LORD (almighty) and that Jesus died to guarantee us an afterlife.

 

Spong is, IMO, onto something else good. He says that the goal of religion is not to become more divine, but to become more human. He believes that we are not fully human (humane) yet, and I'd agree. This is why, to some extent, the philosophy of Star Trek appeals to me. It is tolerant of those who have religious beliefs, but there is no need for God in the Star Trek universe. Star Trek is not about obtaining divinity or deification. It is about "the human adventure." It is about us going bravely into the future where we have not gone before. But there is still morality and understanding and compassion there. There just isn't a need for a divine judge or for a rewarder of good actions. The reward is the adventure, the journey, the wonder of life and being. I find this, for me, deeply inspiring. And Roddenberry was an atheist!

 

But as to why "we" need...well, that is a question that, ultimately comes down to each person. My wife is a fairly creedal Methodist (though raised Baptist). She needs her faith. It helps her make sense of her life. She feels it makes her more compassionate. She feels that the spirit of Jesus lives in her heart (a notion that I don't hold to as ontological truth). But she is the best "Christian" I know. So I don't tell her that she doesn't need Christianity. We all do what we do and believe what we believe to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In connection with a adult education class at my church, earlier this year I wrote a church service intended to show what a testimonial-oriented service might be like, in contrast with our current proclamation-oriented service. That is to say, it reflects a celebration of personal, subjective faith stories without any claim to institutional, objective truth, but with a form and content rooted in Christianity. Since so much of the discussion here has been about abstractions, I thought there might be some interest in seeing how it might come to life in an actual service. I have created an e-mail address for the purpose of sharing something too complex in format to present here. This is not my regular e-mail address, so I can delete it easily if I start getting junk mail or abusive messages. If you'd like to see the service I wrote, just send a note to RodgePC@comcast.net

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BillM, You wrote: "But as to why 'we' need...well, that is a question that, ultimately comes down to each person." That's my point. We each decide what to believe, and inevitably are highly influenced by our needs. Of course, one person may need for there to be an afterlife and another person may need to have a physical explanation for everything. Hence, their needs can lead to very different beliefs. A theological God may be very real to one person, and I don't deny their reality to them. I just object when they decide that their God must be real for me.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. The Israelites needed a "God" to deliver them from Egypt and to help them conquer Canaan. The Jews of Jesus' day needed a messiah that, in their hopes, would destroy "God's" enemies (their enemies) and establish a kingdom here on earth. They lost big time on that one. Constantine needed a "God" to help him unite his Roman empire. The Church needed a "God" of punishment and reward to keep its members in line and supporting the institution while giving it political and social power. The Reformation needed a "God" that would challenge the authority of the Catholic Church and confine "God" to the scriptures. Modern evangelicalism needs a very similar "God" that, it believes, made this a Christian country and makes it blessed by "God." It wants "one nation, under God" with the Bible as our Constitution. I hope that never happens.

 

And, as you have noted, there is then Progressive or Liberal or Emergent Christianity that needs a "God" that sanctions its social programs and challenge to the domination system that we live under. This "God" is said to care about many of the things that Jesus did - feeding the poor, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, etc. But this "God" seems to leave the work up to us.

 

And then, in my opinion, there is the "God" or the "Divinity" of the New Age movement who exists primarily to make a person feel good about themselves. I suspect this is a reaction to the "God" of the Judeo-Christian tradition who seemed to what to make people always feel guilty, shameful, sinful, and unworthy.

 

It is not the case that one of these "Gods" is THE biblical one or THE Jewish one or THE Christian one. I suspect, rather, that we all simply create our "God" concepts according to what we need.

 

God, as an ontological person/spirit may, in fact, exist. But if it does, it doesn't much seem to care about setting its record straight about who/what it REALLY is. It is, therefore, a mystery. And we are each left to discover for ourselves what makes sense to us and meets our particular needs. I don't see anyone going up in smoke for having the wrong concepts. So I suspect that what we call "God" is very different from ANY of our human notions, or that it just doesn't care. It may be busy creating other planets and moons elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger "I just object when they decide that their God must be real for me." I don't think I ever said my God was real to you if the capitalization of God offends you sorry, but like you just did. I capitalize words that relate to it out of respect because some people expect it so I respect it. I am not so much into grammar as the concept being communicated. Roger, I like Bill’s suggestion to PM your email to anyone you would like to receive it.

 

I feel reason and mysticism go hand in hand so the objective and the subjective help and support each other and I don’t think they need to be separated or divorced. An altering of consciousness or mystical experience is beyond human logic, language and reason so people can’t explain it anyway. I think Quantum Physics does the best job describing the unity of everything in a Quantum Soup. Feel free to remove the capitals if you wish like I said words words can't explain or convey the mystical experience if you capitalize them or not. Philosophy, Science and Theology attempt to shed light on principles that lie beneath, above or beyond our mind and senses and for some it is rubbish and for others it helps to clarify things. AAA has a twelve-step program with a set of guiding principles outlining a course of action for tackling problems including alcoholism and drug addiction that affect the mind which I think uses personal narratives to help people go beyond their present mental pattern. I know what my preferences are and it doesn’t really matter what anyone else uses to flourish as long as it doesn’t hurt others.

 

“The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.” (Einstein) I feel we can use reason and mystical experience together to understand our existence and understand or expand our knowledge beyond our circle of influence where knowledge transforms into wisdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having grown up and lived with a supranatural God, it is difficult for me to consider other concepts of God. Nevertheless, I think Paul Tillich may be on to something when he describes God as (my paraphrase) "ultimate reality, the ground of being, that which we take as assume without question." This is quite different from the theistic concept of God where people are always questioning whether God, as an objective other, really exists or not. Most of us (though there are exceptions) don't question the reality of the universe. We generally don't question whether or not love exists. For Tillich (and others), ultimate reality, the depth of being, can only be experienced in relationship with others. God, therefore, is not a Being to be defined, but deepest relationship. And this, according to Tillich, is why the apostle could write that if we don't love others, we don't know God. It's not a matter of know A Being; it's a matter of experiencing our deepest being.

 

But growing up with theism, Rodge, yes, I was taught that I must believe in God as Christianity or the Church or the Bible presented God to me, as if any of these concepts are monolithic. Hardly. God was, essentially, a superhuman who could do whatever he damned-well please and we better get with the program or we would go to hell. In that sense, I am very non-theist. If it works for others, fine. But they better not get in my face or harm my children with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

soma,

 

My background is in journalism, so I am particularly sensitive to communication, To me, the importance of capitalizing or not capitalizing "unity" is not grammatical but in the message it communicates. It sends a message if I would capitalize "Cat" every time I wrote it. It is not simply my expression of a personal reverence for cats, but an assertion to the reader of a special qualities of a particular species. Most Christian churches, and even this web site's 8 Points use capitalization to point to something profound.\and special. Not just nature, but Nature. Only a claim of something beyond nature justifies the capitalization. My challenge is not to say there is nothing beyond it. I just say that it can't be shown that there is or is not something beyond it, so the capitalization is just a personal statement of faith.

 

Often, when I say such things, the response is, "Everyone understands that is it just an expression of faith, not a claim to real truth." The problem with that excuse is that most people don't understand that. When someone says, "The world is coming to an end Aug. 13 and you'd better prepare," that isn't just a statement of personal belief, it is a claim to an absolute truth. Churches are full of people who believe that their church promises God cares about them, or that the ultimate power in the universe is the presence of God's love throughout creation, or that God will protect you from the bite of a poisonous snake. The 8 Points as written proclaim that there something beyond our understanding that is not simply unknown, but is an unknowable reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BilM,

 

What I know if that human consciousness is a great blessing. This knowledge provides me guidance about how to achieve meaning in my life, and a moral compass for my relationship to others. If there is a theistic God, it would make a great difference in how I view and respond to the blessing of human consciousness. But the gift of human consciousness makes it possible for me to conclude that the concept of a theistic God is probably bogus. So, what does it add to acknowledge "the Ground of Our Being"? What difference does it make to me to accept or reject such a construct? None that I can see. So, I conclude that a religion that proclaims a theistic God or some sacred "Ground of Being" to offer little appeal. But one that recognizes how profound is each person's faith, such a church offers substantial and demonstrable value to me as a community that allows me to learn and grow through sharing our personal faiths

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service