BillM

I think that's a very good question to ask, Jack. How we image God does matter. There are, as you have said, probably as many different kinds of theism as their are people. I find Process Theism appeal. I also find Open Theism appealing. Few Christians (present company excepted) probably know what these even are. These are, of course, still human ways of conceiving of God and God's relationship to the world. But supernatural theism is, by far, the most dominant form in the West. And it is the easiest for the atheists to attack. These atheists may consider it to be an attack upon God, but I don't. I don't believe in the God that the atheists are attacking. But finding an image of God that works for modern culture is a challenge.

Well, Thormas, as another Irishman, I'm not saying that leprechauns don't exist. Just that I've never seen one, except in pictures, TV, and on the front of an occasional cereal box. The nice thing about leprechaunism (is that the right term?), is that, as far as I know, you don't go to hell if you don't believe in leprechauns. I do hear that you can get quite stoned at their Communion services, though.

Just to be clear, Burl, I see salvation as personal and social wholeness, not as having one's eternal address changed. Galileo Galilei once said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Anthropologically, religions developed to help people make sense of their world, of their lives, especially in the face of powers beyond their comprehension. If religions don't make sense, as they are doing less and less in the West, then those religions become "non-sense." Who wants to believe in nonsense to help them make sense of the world? Not me. But I'm not talking about religion that satisfies only the intellectually elite. That would most certainly leave me out. What I'm talking about is religion that is not rife with cognitive dissonance, with nonsense, with superstition, with immorality, with statement that claim to be truth that in no way line up with our best understandings of ourselves and our world. Take the doctrine of the Trinity. Even a child can tell you that 1+1+1 does not equal 1, that it equals 3. It is not a matter of intellectualism, it is a matter of truth. So when religions claim that they have no need or desire or goal to make sense, that they are not open to sensible or reasonable or intellectual exploration and scrutiny, is it any wonder that people have little interest in them (except for those who do not value sense, reason, and intellect)?

Yes, Jack, I did set the bar high. I set it to "biblical" standards. What I meant by mystical was not necessarily an inner experience, but a one-on-one, personal experience. Perhaps I misused the word, I don't know. But what I was getting at is that when people in the bible experience the theistic God, they hear with their ears, they see with their eyes, sometimes they touch (if Jesus is God as Christianity insists that he is). Some Christians believe that they actually taste God when they take Communion. All I was saying is that I have had no such personal, theistic confirmation. To me, I'm more comfortable with panentheistic notions of God. As you probably know, in panentheism, while God may be more than nature, God is also considered to be part of the natural world. Something of the Divine can be seen and heard and touched in the natural world. These experiences often lead panentheists to feel "at one" with God. But the experiences are still, IMO, mystical, because these experiences are deeply personal, deeply one-on-one. They don't depend upon a supernatural Deity breaking into the natural world via a miracle. Rather, they often reflect the openness of the person to experience the More or the Sacred or the Divine or God in the everyday wonder that is life.

That is exactly my point, Jack. In Western culture, to be "spiritual" is to be "other worldly." Depending on who you are talking to, this may refer to another state of consciousness, another dimension, or, possibly, an alternate universe. But the goal is still the same -- to be "spiritual" is not to be "here". It is to be outside or distinct from the natural universe, from what we can, with some confidence, verify as being real. In this sort of "spiritual", one can believe in and claim experiences of fairies, pixies, leprechauns, angels, demons, spirits, ghosts, aliens, ESP, communication with the dead, and, of course, hearing from the Being who lives just above our clouds in an invisible (but claimed to be real) realm. All the claims are anecdotal, and, by definition of being outside of verifiable reality (nature), said not to be questioned by those who have a more rational bent who seek some kind of evidence rather than just a personal, subjective claim. In our culture, to be spiritual is to be unnatural, not part of the natural universe. Methodist minister, Michael Dowd, illustrates how this affects the Christian story with in this quote: "An unnatural king who occasionally engages in unnatural acts sends his unnatural son to Earth in an unnatural way. He’s born an unnatural birth, lives an unnatural life, performs unnatural deeds, and is killed and unnaturally rises from the dead in order to redeem humanity from an unnatural curse brought about by an unnaturally talking snake. After 40 days of unnatural appearances he unnaturally zooms off to heaven to return to his unnatural father, sit on an unnatural throne, and unnaturally judge the living and the dead. If you profess to believe in all this unnatural activity, you and your fellow believers get to spend an unnaturally long time in an unnaturally boring paradise while everyone else suffers an unnatural, torturous hell forever." This is what conservative theism proposes. If the theistic God is a supernatural reality, and we are but natural creatures dwelling in a natural universe, one would think such a God would find a "natural" way to reach us. But Christianity is a religion of the supernatural. It is, by its own admission, a mystery, incomprehensible, unverifiable, not subject to understanding or logic. And this is precisely why only faith is required.

This. I don't think that this is the stance of Christianity, but I do think that it is the truth to which Jesus pointed. God's Presence doesn't descend from the sky. Rather, it is in each of us. Being spiritual doesn't mean being above the world in order to escape it. Rather, it means going deeper into the world to connect, love and transform it. God is not found in temples, books, or institutions. Rather, God is discovered, recognized, and celebrated in each other. Namaste.

Good advice, Joseph, on both levels. L'Chaim!

In the interest of full disclosure, I was one of the ones who, a few years back, did not care for the 8-Points removing God-language from their tenets, and I said so. My thinking at the time was, "God was at the center of Jesus' life and teachings, so how can we remove something Jesus believed in and experienced, and still call ourselves Christians?" My thinking has changed since then. It will, no doubt, continue to do so. So I reserve the right to change my mind. Nevertheless: All words are human words. None of them are divine, as such, at least not in the way that most religions teach (from the mouth of God). We are the ones who fill these combinations of vowels and consonants with meaning. This is especially true with the words that we have elevated to divine status, such as 'God', 'Jesus', 'Spirit', 'Bible', etc. I doubt that our human propensity to idolize and worship words can be helped. We are, by nature, meaning-seeking and meaning-making creatures, and these words are boiler-plates that we use to categorize our best understandings or descriptions of our deepest meanings. But the fact of the matter is that the word 'God' means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. There is a sense in which I don't believe in the same 'God' now as I did when I was younger. God may not (or may) change, but my understandings and experiences of God certainly have. Knowing this, I was wrong to be dogmatic on who/what God is. Jesus was, no doubt, a Jew, a first century Jew. It is very doubtful that his understanding of God has much to do with the popular Christian concept of God. Which brings me to my conclusion. We have no concrete knowledge of anything. All we have available to us is our concepts. I think some concepts are better than others, that some concepts of God are better than others. But I think we should hold to these concepts lightly and be ready to modify them if necessary. It is much the same with the word 'Christian'. I no longer wear the label because, in the West, a Christian is someone who holds to the Creeds, which mention nothing Jesus taught. I still respect Jesus greatly and endeavor to live out his humanistic teachings, although I reject the mythical aspects that, IMO, have grown up around him. So I doubt I would fit most people's definition of 'Christian.' And that's okay. It is just a human word. If I'm defined these days, it is by my actions, not by my beliefs. I still have my own thoughts about 'God', but they belong to me and are not binding on anyone else.

I agree with you, also, Thormas. To me, if Christianity survives, it must be incarnational. The teachings and ways of Jesus must be "born again" into each generation, even into each person. It is not enough, IMO, for people to hold to old doctrines, dogmas, and creeds. When the way Christianity is told no longer makes sense to us, we find it irrelevant, non-cohesive, unhelpful, even inhumane. The story of Christianity that I was told was this: "You, Bill, came into the world separated from God by your sin. Because of your sin, you will die and go to hell UNLESS you believe in Jesus. If you believe in Jesus' death on the cross for your sins and his resurrection (Paul's gospel, not Jesus' gospel), you will be forgiven and go to heaven when you die." In this scenario, God becomes a human sacrifice to himself because God can't forgive us or be in a relationship with us because of our sin. But the sacrifice only takes effect if *we* believe it does. Otherwise, we go to hell. This was the "true insight" of Christianity that I was taught and came to reject. It makes no sense to me and, though calling itself grace, keeps us relegated to wretches and sinners. If this is the best that Christianity can do, if this is the "faith once handed down to us from the saints", I don't need it. And I doubt that it will resonate with the modern world much longer.

I'm very much the opposite, Jack. I'm not saying you are wrong, BTW, just that it is the natural teachings and ways of Jesus that appeal to me. Things like clothing others, feeding others, caring for the poor, visiting prisoners, helping the thirsty, sheltering the homeless, standing up for justice, forgiving others, loving others. As a naturalist, the supernatural claims of Jesus and of Christianity leave me scratching my head. There are, of course, no ways of testing or proving these claims because the supernatural is, by definition, outside of the realm of science which can only test and verify the natural world. So I find things like Jesus being born of a virgin with no earthly father, Jesus turning water into wine, Jesus walking on water, Jesus casting out demons, Jesus raising the dead after 3 days, the resurrection, and the ascension to be, while orthodox, completely against the laws of nature (which makes them miracles) and, therefore, highly suspect as actual historical events. Christians often counter by saying that the canon is now closed, God is done working that way, and the goal now is to have faith in the supernatural happenings of the past. Yet, Christians claim that this same "Jesus" now lives in their hearts. If this is ontologically true, they should be able to do all the things that Jesus did and, by his own claim, do even greater things. But I don't find this to be the case. What Christians do seems very much natural to me, with no supernatural involved. This doesn't mean that I don't believe in the spiritual. But I define being spiritual as being connected to others and our world, not as some higher plane of existence or being possessed by some kind of outside-of-nature transcendent spirit. But, again, that is me. YMMV.

I hear ya, Jack. If I wear the label at all nowadays, I'm a "cafeteria Christian." I reserve to myself the right and responsibility to choose from the bible, from Christianity, and from the Church those things that I think are sensible and moral, humane and compassionate, inclusive and community-building. I "eat" only what tastes good to me. Neither orthodoxy nor tradition force feed me from their menus.

Well, I turn 58 recently. Sixty is literally right around the corner. Woo-hoo! So I thought I would share a few thoughts of reflection with anyone who cares to read them. I've had a good life. I've been blessed with a good wife, good children, a good family, good friends, and a good job. Everything's good! Ha ha! Seriously, I'm grateful. I'm thankful. But it is certainly true that life is like the roll of toilet paper: the closer you get to the end, the faster it goes. It took forever for me to get through my teen years. Twenty to thirty went substantially faster, ending with me finding the love of my life - Penny McCracken. Thirty to now has, in many ways, been a blur. They say that time is a constant, but it is amazing how fast the years have sped up and gone by. And I'm sure that I don't have that much time left. Not a complaint, just the reality of things. So here is a bit of advice for those who are younger. A few things I've learned along the way that I wish I knew when I was younger. 1. Focus on things that bring you positive emotions. I'm not talking about hedonism. I'm just saying that life is way too short to be negative all the time. I know a few people who are almost constantly negative. You can't find well-being in negativity. Seek the positive. It will make you healthier, physically and psychologically. 2. Be fully engaged with your life. Don't let it pass you by. Don't be a passive by-stander who just watches from the sidelines or is a victim of circumstance. Actively participate in making your life what you want it to be. Be passionate about it. 3. Keep relationships the most important thing in your life. Relationships are not easy. They are complicated and costly. But they can offer you the most meaning and purpose that you can ever know. 4. And speaking of meaning and purpose, find it in something bigger than yourself. Find organizations and causes that strive to do things to better the human predicament and our world. Avoid those that are demeaning of humans and that don't seek to make the world a better place. 5. Lastly, seek to achieve things in your life. Set worthy goals and strive to reach them. These can be hobbies that you enjoy or relationships that you cherish. These things will take time and effort. But they are worth it. Don't waste your time and efforts on meaningless things or on people that just don't care about you or others. My "old man" advice could probably be summed up in this: "Do no harm (or as little as possible), while maximizing freedom." Flourish. Grow. This is how I intend to spend my remaining years. Don't waste the one life that you have. It goes by way too quick.

I truly wish that were true, Thormas. One of the reasons I lost my faith is that God, in the bible, is NOT love. According to the scriptures, he allows the Deceiver into the Garden of Eden, knowing it would result in death for all of mankind. He punishes all humans for the sin of two people. Later, he drowns the whole world (including women and children) except for 7 people. Later, he tells Abraham to kill his son, and Abraham is considered to have faith for being ready to obey God's commands. Later, he hardens Pharoah's heart, leading to the death of untold Egyptians. Later, he kills all of the firstborn of Eqypt two-years-old and young for Pharoah's stubbornness. Later, despite promising the Hebrews they would go to the Promised Land, he allows them all to die in the desert. Later, he commands Joshua and the Hebrews to enter neighboring nations and slaughter everything that breathes (including women and children, excluding virgins which are war booty). Later, he tells his people to mutilate their sex organs and gives them 613 laws which have death as the punishment for not obeying. Later, Jesus is a human sacrifice to appease God's wrath. Later, he tells people, through the apostle Paul, that women are to be obedient to their husbands and that they can only be saved through child-birth. Later, he tells people that slave owners should treat their slaves kindly. And, lastly, the bible ends with God casting people into everlasting torture. Given all of this, and this is just the tip of the iceberg, I would disagree that "the whole story of God is the story of Love." If we are going to be honest to the testimony of ALL of the scriptures, God is not always a loving Being. He, of course, has his good days. But he has just as many bad where he is angry and immoral. He loses his temper and tells people to do things which would result in us being locked up or executed today. The only way I could claim that the God of the bible is Love is to remove about half of it. I'd rather people read it for what it is -- human failings and successes given the mask of Divinity.

Thormas, though I'm not a fan of proof-texting, here are the passages I referenced: "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” - Matt 3:13-17 A voice from heaven spoke. "As he (Saul) neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” 7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; THEY HEARD the sound but did not see anyone." - Acts 9:3-7 Saul and his companions heard the voice. 6 “About noon as I (Saul) came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. 7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’ 8 “‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked. “ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. 9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me." - Acts 22:6-9 Saul hears a voice and understands it. Saul's companions also heard the voice but didn't understand it. Was the voice gibberish to them? If the voice caused vibrations in the air, as voices do, why would Saul understand it but not his companions? Granted, as you say, it may come down to how we view the bible. I came to believe, quite a few years ago now, that the bible was not infallible and inerrant, that it is not the literal words of God (unless God is fallible and errant, another subject). So what we have, then, are simply the words of men, nothing more. Therefore, IMO, it doesn't follow that the bible gives us an accurate understanding of God. Rather, it tells us how ancient humans understood God. Some say the wheel needs to be fixed. I suspect it needs to be reinvented.

FWIW, I very much agree with Joseph's comment above. I listen to a number of podcasts, from Christian to agnostic to atheist. All three philosophies say that the fundamentalist approach to Christianity is growing due to 1) the emphasis that "God is real", i.e. supernatural theism, and 2) the coherent (from the inside) package of ready-made answers. This is an appealing approach to religion for those who, no insult intended, don't want to do the hard work of figuring out one's own theology. When I do go to church nowadays (not very often), it is to my wife's United Methodist church. The UMC is being torn apart right now over the issue of marrying and ordaining gays. As might be expected, there is a liberal element that says that the denomination needs to embrace new knowledge and social progress. But, as might be expected, there is also a very conservative element that wants to preserve the exclusivism of traditional Methodism and seeks, at all costs, to ensure the survival of the denomination, the religious tradition as-is. Evolution teaches us that survival is never based upon rigid non-change. Things survive only as they adapt to their surroundings. As Joseph has said, Christianity is an invention of man, of the early church, not even of Jesus himself. Current Barna research says that while 80% of American believe in God, only 8% of those believers hold to the most popular historical doctrines of Christianity i.e. the Creeds. And 30% of all Christianity clergy don't believe in Jesus' physical, bodily resurrection. And, yes, the numbers in the mainline churches are falling rapidly. Though Spong feels that Christianity must change or die, I'm not, myself, concerned about preserving the religion. I suspect that people will always seek experiencing the Divine. I know they will always seek and build community. We are hard-wired that way. While I respect Progressive Christianity for trying to "throw out the bath water while keeping the baby", I'm not convinced that it will ultimately be successful. I suspect it will work for many who desire to still wear the label "Christian". I applaud that. If you are a Christian, live it out with as much authenticity as you can. But, yes, the decline of Christianity in the West is leading to many "Nones" or "Spiritual-but-not-Religious" and there is not yet, that I know of, any formal efforts to help these people explore post-Christianity or post-theism or to build new communities.

To all: This is an observation, not a criticism. It seems to me that the bible is written from a theistic point of view. In the bible’s theism, God is, for the most part, in heaven (not here) and has to send prophets in order to speak to human beings. There are, of course, always exceptions. There are theophanies, a notion which most Christians apply to Jesus. But in the bible, generally, God speaks (either to a prophet or to people), and people hear. It is usually audible, inciting how transcendent (other) God is from us. I have never had that particular experience. What I have had is, common to human experiences, intuitions, leanings, moments of unction, fairly strong influences that I should pursue a certain path. The problem is, how do I know that these things are not just *me* instead of *Divine*? Some would say that there is no difference. And while I might agree with that in theory, that is not the bible’s way of describing how God communicates. So, again, not a criticism, but if the god that speaks to me internally is not the God of the bible (who speaks externally, audibly and actually vibrates the air), then I’m forced to question if the god I experience is the God of the bible or Christianity. Thankfully, this god of my experience never tells me to kill my neighbors or to sacrifice my children or to treat slaves kindly. I suppose that you could say that the god of my experience is love, a kinder, gentler god. But the god of my experience, whether it is only a phantasm in my mind or some kind of all-pervasive Presence, is not much like the God of the bible, does not seem to be either Yahweh or the Father of Jesus. In fact, I’ve come to trust this Inner Light more than the portrayals of God in the scriptures and in the Christian tradition. For many, doing this would definitely qualify me as a heretic. Lastly (because I’m not a fan of reading long posts, though I seem to write them far too often), I’m not sure that I agree with Jack’s comment that, in panentheism, “Love God and love thy neighbor” becomes *only* “love thy neighbor and love thy neighbor”. God is, for me, a place holder for all that is larger than myself. I no longer believe in God as a Person (or three Persons), but I do experience god as, for lack of a better term, the Connectedness of all things. Seen in this way, loving the Connectedness inevitably leads us to love our neighbors (and even our enemies) because we see that we are all connected on some level. The hard borders fall away while also being able to appreciate and be thankful for the differences in others.

Thormas, I won’t address all of the passages you reference, and I’m doing this just from memory, but I seem to recall that at Jesus’ baptism, the skies part and there is a voice from heaven which says, “This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.” There is another passage where Jesus says that he doesn’t speak anything except for what God speaks to him. Or his words are God’s words, or something to that effect. Paul doesn’t see Jesus, but one account says that everyone in Paul’s party heard the voice saying, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” Another account says that Paul alone heard the voice. They say that if you talk to God, that is prayer. If God talks to you, that is insanity. Ha ha!

Hi, Jack. Nice to meet you! I've had many experiences of awe and of the sublime. And they continue. But I've only had one mystical experience that I would call religious in nature. Without going into all the details, the experience that changed me made me feel that I was okay with What Is, with the Universe, so-to-speak. This experience contained no optical visions or auditory manifestations, only subjective feeling. No scientific evidence whatsoever. But it certainly seemed real. Real enough that it convinced me that I and everyone else is okay with What Is. I didn't have to take my shoes off or speak in tongues or fall off of a horse. I didn't have to do anything. That was what was so freeing to me. So now, though I'm concerned about how we treat each other and our planet, what someone believes or doesn't believe isn't that important to me. My experience transcended beliefs. It was truly what Christians might call "grace". But you are right, IMO, that my experience is binding on no one else. It seemed meant for me because that was what I needed at the time. I don't use it as a gospel to transform anyone else. I struggle to even put the experience into words. Ineffable. In all honesty, it may have been a psychological phenomenon, just random firing in my brain of certain neurons, a hallucination. If so, it was a good trip.

One of the things in the gospels that still gets me is that Jesus' favorite title for himself was "the human one." Most bibles translate this as "the son of man", but the meaning seems to be, as you have said, that Jesus shows us what it is like to be fully human. In that sense, if we are not loving, if we are not compassionate, then we are not fully human. I don't mean that we aren't homo sapiens, just that we are not yet fully humane if we are not compassionate with ourselves, with others, and with our world. So I find it odd that Christianity deified Jesus and turned him into a god, distancing him from humanity by declaring him to be inerrant, infallible, a theophany. The typical Christian stance is that while we can worship Jesus (because he is now God), we can certainly never be like him. Why? Because, except for in the case of Jesus, God is a being separate from the universe. Yet there are plenty of scriptural passages that say that we are the Body of Christ or that what Christ was, we are to be. One of the reasons I gave up traditional Christianity is because of the teaching that Jesus was a theophany, not truly human, not like us. He was perfect. We are but sinners, wretches saved by grace. Incarnational theology restricts God to one person, to one place, to one time. How might Christianity be transformed and transformative if we believed and lived out the notion that *we* are God's manifestations in the world? It wouldn't solve the total problem of theodicy, but it would go a long way in suggesting that if God does anything about suffering and death in this world, God does it through those who strive to be compassionate humans.

My wife is interested in exploring PC. Has anyone had any experience with the "Living the Questions 2.0 Home Edition"? If so, what are your impressions of it? What are its strengths? Its weaknesses? Is it helpful?

Joseph, You and I have had more than a few discussions on this subject. Ha ha! In some sense, I think I understand what you are getting at. If not, you can, of course, correct me. For all intents and purposes, all we have available to us of the "real world" is our perceptions of it. In other words, and relying on science rather than metaphysical notions, we perceive reality through our 5 senses and our brains attempt to interpret and reconstruct our perceptions into a, hopefully, cohesive whole. Whether or not the reconstructed whole reflects actual reality (if it exists) is a matter open for debate. I love the analogy to this in the movie "The Matrix". Everything Neal experiences while he is in the pod are neurological simulations in his brain created by the aliens in order to use his lifeforce as a "Coppertop". He knows nothing of the "real world." Does that mean, within the context of the movie, that the real world didn't exist? No. It existed, and he lived there, but he couldn't access it or interact with it. He needed a savior to set him free from his illusion. However, when freed he did find the real world, not just another illusion. Some say that this is what religion does, that we have saviors that come to set us free from our illusions to the real world. These saviors are said to dispel our illusions and lift us to a higher or enlightened plane where we can see that what we now call the real world is but an illusion, a dream, a fantasy. The only way that I can honestly respond to this is to say that such has not been my experience. Jesus has been my savior since I was 12 years old, and the times that he has been the most helpful in saving me is when I've found something in his person or teaching that has helped me to deal with life HERE, with life NOW. If there is life outside of my pod, either now or later, it is, for some reason, still inaccessible to me. I don't know why. Perhaps, as the apostle Paul warns, I am too much "of this world." Perhaps I am still one of those who have eyes but don't see, who have ears but don't hear. Maybe someday a savior will come to set me from my pod and this illusion that I call real life. In the meantime, I will do the best that I can to enjoy the experiences that I have here and now, and to, hopefully, encourage and help others along the way. PS: BTW, I don't see this as a point of contention between us, just a point of difference.

I appreciate your thoughts, Thormas. One of the NT scholars I respect is Bart Erhman, and his book, "God's Problem", which deals with the issue of theodicy does a fairly good job, IMO, of showing how the bible doesn't really address this topic in a satisfactory way. If you have time, could you send me links to the insights/perspective you are considering? I find panentheism interesting, although, I suppose, it still posits God as some sort of super-being or consciousness. And I run into the walls of what it means to be a being. Beings occupy time and space. Unless one appeals to the supernatural (which I don't), beings are physical in nature. Once the supernatural is appealed to, it is no longer subject to evidence, at least of the verifiable or scientific kind. And consciousness, as far as we know, is a product of the physical brain. Is there a huge brain (as opposed to a teapot) in orbit around Jupiter? I do like the idea of God as being incarnational. But I don't like the Christian idea that God is and was incarnational ONLY in Jesus of Nazareth. That doctrine seems to me to controvert what Jesus taught.

Branching off from our thread on Agnosticism, I've wondered what it would take for me to be a theist again. Back when I was a theist, I was an external theist. In other words, I believed in God because of what the bible said, or what the Church said, or what Christianity said. A good, common definition of a theist is someone who believes in God as a supernatural being who is personally involved in our lives. I believed that way for many years, yet, in hindsight, I found little evidence that God personally loved me or that he listened to and answered my prayers or that he had some kind of great and wonderful plan for my life. In fact, I left theism because the evidence for such a God was so paltry. So what would it take for me to be a theist again? I guess it would have to take mystical theism. I mean, consider the mystics in the bible. God personally appears to Abraham and Moses and speaks to them (according to the biblical record). God personally appears to Jesus, talks to him, answers his prayers. Jesus, who is God in Christendom, personally appears to Saul and speaks to him. Nothing in these theistic accounts is "hearsay." These people claimed to experience the personal, living God. And these experiences changed them. That's what I would need in order to be a theist again. I'm not going to trust in hearsay. If God is truly personal (as theists claim he is), then he should personally appear and speak to me. There should be some evidence that convinces me that he exists and is real, at least as a "person" (or three persons as Christians say he is). I'm 58 now. To date, God is a no-show for me. As a theist, I had to trust the testimonies and experiences of others. No longer. I won't hold to second-hand faith. I tend to believe the adage, "The invisible and the unreal often look pretty much the same."

As most of us know, many Christian theists generally claim to know that God (as a supernatural being) exists. They claim this knowledge based upon external evidence or authority (the testimony of the bible, of the Church, or of Christianity). In reality, even their appeal to external evidence or authority is based upon their internal understandings and interpretations, so they often use their external "proofs" to support their internal beliefs. IMO, such theism is a "hearsay" religion. These theists claim to know God, but what they claim to know is what others have testified to. This makes for good unity amongst theists (shared beliefs, doctrines, and dogmas) and I suppose this is how major religions survive. On the other hand, we have Christian theists who claim to know that God exists through their own personal mystical experiences. They don't require the bible or the Church or institutional Christianity to support their beliefs or faith. They are not necessarily opposed to these trappings, but they are at least aware that what they claim to know comes from within, even if their experiences are of something bigger. To me, I don't find "hearsay" religion to be very helpful. It tends to be unchanging, and while there may be some good tenets or principles that are passed along, it usually also has a lot of baggage that is outdated and no longer relevant to the human condition. I suppose this is why I like the UCC (as far as Christian denominations go). They have an adage that says, "God is not done speaking." This is, IMO, somewhat in concert with process theology. And, in my experience, if there is any kind of theology (based in theism) that deals with the issue of theodicy in a half-way convincing way, it is process theology. It is still a bit to theistic for me, but if I were still a theist, that is the kind of theist I would be.

Thormas, Yes, I meant to say that knowledge and beliefs are NOT best considered in binary terms. An oversight. As to the basic question of whether there is God, PCs often say, echoing Marcus Borg, "Tell me about the God you don't believe in." If one defines God as Reality, then, yes, I'm fairly confident that Reality exists. I know that there are those who would disagree with me. We could all be deluded, living in some kind of Matrix. But I still have "faith" that the universe is real and science seems to back this up (although things get really strange on the quantum level). I agree with you that we do reach a point where we seem to choose to follow a certain path that leads us to Truth, at least for those who are concerned about what we might call the Bigger Questions. We are, after all, rational creatures that make decisions as to how to respond to our lives. For me, without using the word "God" because it is so loaded, I live my life as if there is no deity running the show, as if I'm not a puppet on a string, as if I'm not having my every move judged against some arbitrary basis for sin, as if there is no heaven and no hell. I'm open to further evidence of a Creator, but due to the lack of evidence and coherency, I'm fairly convinced that such a Creator is not Yahweh. That kind of anthropomorphism no longer works for me. And, of course, all of this comes from my 5 pounds of very fallible brain.