BillM

That would be my take on it also, Paul. While I am certainly moved by the plights of others, I not only doubt the efficacy of "intercessory prayer", but I also doubt the efficacy of the more New-Agey woo of "I'm sending positive thoughts your way." Again, I would be opposed to either kinds of "prayers" if they could be shown to work in the real world. But they don't work, at least in any statistical analysis. Yes, I know of cases of "Well, my second cousin twice removed received a miraculous healing of his gall bladder", but these seem to me to be little more than chance/random occurrences. They could certainly be attributed to the power of an Almighty God to heal (and often are), but they sure make God seem quite capricious. I would rather follow the truth, come what may.

Fatherman, one small, further comment. When I do "pray", it is more about seeking wisdom and empowerment for me to do something for someone or for a situation. Whether it is verbal for me or just "in my head", it is me wondering what I can do, not me asking God to do something. Of course, everyone has to find their own path. But your notion of "surrender" simply doesn't work for me. For me, it is too militaristic, too dominion-based. It is like a slave surrendering to his master, claiming no freedom or power of his own, being conquered by a power greater than himself. My idea of prayer is not of giving up my will to God, but of seeking empowerment so that I can make a difference. If I don't feel I can make a difference in someone's life for the better (and often I cannot), I don't pray for them. As I've mentioned elsewhere, my daughter smokes three packs of cigarettes a day. I don't pray for her to quit as 1) I don't believe God is going to take away her desire for them and 2) she refuses to listen to any wisdom about the harm they do to her. So I don't pray for her to quit. It sounds cold and heartless, but that's how I deal with it. YMMV.

When I was young, my mother taught me to say, "God bless you!" whenever someone sneezed. She never told me why I should say it, just that it was the polite and proper thing to say. If someone sneezed and you didn't say it, you came across as impolite and, possibly, uncaring. When I got older, I discovered that one of the reasons people say "God bless you!" is because it was believed that sneezing expelled demons and that saying "God bless you!" somehow invoked God's blessing to prevent demons (and more demons) from re-entering. I no longer believe in demons (or angels or fairies or Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster), but it still feels rude to not say, "God bless you!" when someone around me sneezes. I don't hold to the theology behind this custom, but the custom is so strong and prevalent that I feel a sense of inappropriateness if I don't answer a sneeze by invoking the blessing of the Almighty. I feel much the same about prayer. For me, praying and trying to motivate God to intervene and do something on behalf of another doesn't change one damn thing. Studies have shown that, contrary to religious claims, prayer doesn't change anything. Nothing. Now, a case can be made (and has) that positive thinking can affect outcomes. There is something about positive thinking that can help our bodies to heal or that can refocus our thoughts into ways of wisdom. But this is quite different from speaking (or thinking) words to a Sky-Daddy, believing that he will hear and respond to our requests. If this method for changing things actually worked in real-life, our churches would be packed. But I suspect that most people know deep down that prayer is a crap shoot. Maybe the prayer will be answered. Maybe it won't. But there is always the fall back of leaving things to "God's will." If that is the case, why pray at all? So I don't pray for people anymore. Though it would be the "polite and proper" thing for me to do, it feels horribly dishonest to do so. It feels rude if I don't pray for others, but I simply don't believe anything changes and I don't want to give them any false hope that the words of BillM to a Deity can somehow change the laws of physics in our universe. I no longer pray to God anymore than I would to Zeus. Any notions of God that I still have left (which aren't many) do not posit that anyone needs an intercessor, that there is a distance or boundaries that they can't cross, but I can. To me, that position would be foolish. If the theistic God won't answer their prayers, nothing I can say is going to change his mind. As always, my 2 cents.

When I left fundamentalism, Wonnerful, (a number of years ago now), I wanted to get to a more scholarly, more historical approach to the scriptures, to Jesus, to early Christianity. I wanted to know what the bible really said, who Jesus really was, what the early church (including Paul) really believed. But through my research (facilitated by Bart Ehrman, Robert Funk, the Jesus Seminar, and others you've mentioned), I've come to realize that it is impossible and futile to get to the real history of these things. The scriptures have been tampered with, made to serve whatever the needs of the church were for a particular time and place. Did the church need "Christian soldiers" to fight for or maintain their control? Then it was easy to change the scriptures to meet this need. Did the church need more authority? Then it was easy to have Paul say that government rules by divine right. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the church has had this. So, in my journey, I faced a dilemma. Fundamentalism focused on getting as close to the original scriptures as possible and then taking that to be literal truth. If the bible said Jesus rose again on the third day, then it historically happened. Liberal Christianity focused on getting as close to the meaning of the scriptures as possible and then taking that as metaphorical truth. If the bible said that Jesus rose again on the third day, what truth does that mean in our lives today. But my dilemma highlighted to me that we cannot get to the original scriptures, the historical Jesus or the historical Paul. The "quests" go on, but there is no resolution. Biblical scholars cannot agree as to what the historical Jesus was "really" like or what he "really" taught. In fundamentalism, Jesus was exactly who the scriptures said him to be, even if I found him quite unbelievable. In progressive Christian, Jesus is whoever the PC says he is or isn't. The dichotomy is between the fundamentalist "Jesus on the page" to the liberal "Jesus in my heart." Both claim to have the "real" Jesus. But we no longer have the original, so there is no way to know. Some people claim to have their experience, claiming that is enough for them. While I agree that experience is important, I don't think we are as infallible and inerrant as some seem to think we are. We are easily deceived, especially when our experiences have no correlation to the experiences of others. I found that the "Jesus" that people claim lives in their hearts is nothing like the "Jesus" found on the pages of scripture. So I have had to, sadly, give up my quest for a real bible, a real Jesus, a real Christianity. There is no plumb line. There is no place where we can say, "Yes, this is how it originally was, let's get back to that." Some see this as a blessing, as impetuous to move forward unchained and unburdened by the past. Perhaps so. But when the elephant no longer has any characteristics of an elephant, why continue to call it an elephant. It has become, in fact, something else.

I think I understand better, Fatherman. I'm glad what you're finding works well for you. But I, personally, cannot surrender to someone whom I don't trust, and I don't trust God as God is presented in the bible. On the whole, I don't find him to be good or moral or fair. There are "better notions" of God presented in the Christian scriptures, but it is all mixed together with the other notions of God commanding genocide, destroying the world, killing babies, wanting a human sacrifice, enjoying the scent of burning flesh, creating hell, and destroying his enemies rather than forgiving them. So I don't trust the goodness of this particular God or the claims of his love for creation when he has done so much to harm it or to ignore its pleas for help or mercy. Yet, if you are finding another understanding of God that works for you, I applaud that 100%.

Joseph, How, then, does your approach to healing benefit those seeking it? My brother-in-law has been diagnosed with cancer in his kidneys. He is a Catholic and believes in God. So if he was to ask you about whether or not God would heal him of cancer, what would your response be? Would you tell him, as you've said, that some people are healed and that healing is available to him if he tunes to that power? Now, please hear me on this: I don't doubt for one minute that such could happen. He could indeed tune to that power and receive healing. I don't deny that. It is possible. But I am far more concerned about probabilities than possibilities. Sure, God could possibly heal my brother-in-law. But it is far more probable that his healing will come from medicine and surgery. In fact, he is pursuing medical solution right now, even though he is a Christian. Why is this so? Because the odds of him being cancer-free increase dramatically with proven science rather than with trusting in the one-in-a-million chance "possibility" of a miraculous healing. That's why most people, even Christians, turn to doctors instead of the church when they are sick. Again, I'm not denying that sometimes healings happen. But the fact is that almost every person knows that medical science is far more effective in dealing with sickness than prayer to a God who might, if the right words are said coupled with the correct amount of faith, heal someone if he happens to be in a good mood that day. Bill

Fatherman, the fact of the matter is that you and I aren't going to see eye to eye on this subject. I don't believe that God is in control of us and everything that happens in our world. I don't believe our world is going along according to some divine will. Having said that, most of scripture does support the view that God is "sovereign" or "lord" and "God works all things together for good (but only of those who love him." There is even a verse that says that if evil befalls a city, God has done it. God does what God wants to do. He doesn't consult us. He sends hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans. He invents AIDS to punish homosexuals. He killed my granddaughter in a car accident and I have no right to question his will. Whom am I to say to the Creator, "Why hast Thou created the world this way?" I am but dust and clay. This is precisely why I am a non-theist.

Joseph, I, too, have seen some strange things. I suspect all of us have, if we are honest about it. The problem arises, IMO, when we turn the "one strange thing" into what we believe is normative. Ten people can have cancer. One is healed by a "miracle" and it is suddenly proclaimed, "Hallelujah, God heals!" The other nine die. Only the "hits" are counted. The "misses" are either ignored or written off to the mystery of God's inscrutable will. If one doesn't care about human suffering, then this dilemma probably doesn't mean much. But for the other nine who die, they are left wondering why God doesn't answer their prayers or why God is punishing them for their sins. For better or worse, religion links sickness with the reward/punishment paradigm of theism. Given this paradigm, God is angry with 90% of the human population. But he will (and does) heal the 10% that he loves. I find such theology repugnant to me. Just how I see it.

Fatherman, the problem has always been, for me, how are we to know what God's will really is? Now, Christians will say that God's will is revealed in the bible, especially in the teachings of Jesus and his apostles. For any situation in life, we can crack open our scriptures and find out what God's will is for us. So let's take the issue of sickness and healing, as long as we are on that topic. If we are sick, what is God's will for us? Well, though I don't have my bible with me at the moment, here is a paraphrase of what James, Jesus' brother, says is God's will for the sick: "If there is any sick among you, let him call for the elders of the church, and the prayer of faith will raise him up." This is, according to the apostle James, God's will for those who are sick. Go to church and the prayer of the elders will cure the sickness. So why do Christians go to doctors and physicians? Why do they seek out and trust the same resources as the "ungodly" use. Why do they use medicine? James never says to go to the doctors or to take medicine. He says that the prayer of the elders is the cure-all for sickness. So I would think it safe to say that, with few excepts, Christians DISOBEY God's will concerning sickness. This is, IMO, why most Christians, though disobeying the will of God, get over their sickness. I am also not one to subscribe to the "let God do it" type of theology. My daughter, a committed Christian, smokes 3 packs of cigarettes a day. She knows the dangers. And if I try to talk to her about it, she responds, "Daddy, if God doesn't want me to smoke cigarettes, he will take away the craving." So she is a big believer in the notion that if God wants to do a thing, he will do it -- without our input or help. In my studies of the gospels, I never see Jesus advocating a "sit back and relax, just trust God" attitude. He certainly believed that God was active in the world. But he seemed to advocate that we, as humans, join with God in what God is doing. So the kind of determinism that I see in Calvinistic Christianity is, IMO, a severe distortion of the teachings of Jesus. I never see him saying, "Let go and let God." His central teaching is that we love God and love one another. God, IMO, is not going to do that for us.

The other aspect of this that is important to me is that I am a spiritual naturalist. In other words, I believe what we call God works through our natural world. I don't mean that God is behind earthquakes and hurricanes, just that I experience life, love, and being through the natural world rather than through supernatural claims. This might make me, in some sense, a deist. Because I view God this way, I would rather seek out a good doctor for my ailments than have my church pray for me. Science, to me, is a gift from God -- our ability to understand and shape our world through our senses. This doesn't make me a materialist or a proponent of scientism (science is the only truth). I like to keep an open mind. But I'm not a fan of the "woo-factor" that says that God's ways are completely beyond human ken. After all, the early church claimed that Jesus somehow made "God's ways" known or revealed. And even in the gospel accounts, Jesus did fewer and fewer "miracles" as his ministry progressed. Perhaps the crowds loved the "woo-factor" but didn't want to follow his way. But, knowing my own heart, I think the biggest miracles are when we live out the gifts of the Spirit with one another. Those things may not be as flashy as healing services, but I find them more transformative and unifying.

I agree with you, Fatherman, that the mind and the body are inextricably linked. I do believe the some kinds of healing can come through correct thinking or meditation or some other "mind work." What I dislike is the guilt that follows if a healing is not achieved or maintained. As you probably know, my 4-year-old granddaughter was severely and critically injured in a car wreck last Xmas Eve. They Care-Flighted her to the nearest hospital. I drove my daughter, the child's mother, as quickly and as safely as I could to Fort Worth. My daughter is very charismatic in her faith and she was "pleading the blood of Jesus" the entire way, trusting that God would descend from heaven and heal this little girl. She died anyway. Why? My daughter is a devout Christian, believing that God can do anything. And we certainly had more than the "two or three gathered in My name" for Jesus to show up and heal Moriah. Was it because my daughter or one of us didn't have enough faith? Was it because my daughter or one of us has some secret sin in our lives? Was it because demons were oppressing us? Was it because it simply was God's will for Moriah to die and leave us with no answers as to why? There are certainly accounts in the gospels of Jesus healing people because of their faith. But there are also accounts of Jesus healing them simply because they were suffering and he had compassionate. The problem with "healings" is that there is no guarantee and there is no "mechanism" for determining who will be healed, for how long, and why they are healed when others are not. In this sense, God becomes very capricious, very much a "respecter of persons." I, personally, find that troubling.

I speak only for myself, TDB, but I tend to think that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. I grew up (in my teen years) in churches that believed in the "full gospel" where salvation included not only the saving of the soul, but the healing and restoration of the body. We often had "healing services". At these services, people claimed to be healed of migraines, stomach problems, loss of eyesight and/or hearing, stiffness of joints and mobility. I've even seen people get out of their walkers and wheelchairs and dance down the aisles. And I witnessed many people being set free from "demonic oppression" (because, we were told, demons could only oppress Christians, not possess them). These were indeed wonder-working miracles for me as a young person. These miracles certainly seemed to mirror the kinds of things attributed to Jesus in the gospels and it was very exciting to be in an atmosphere where God was still working today. And, like you, I found the people to usually be filled with joy, uninhibited spiritually, holding to the "God can do anything if we only have faith" attitude. It was infectious. But what I noticed (over quite a long period of time) is that people eventually began to complain of things that they had supposedly be healed of. They had to come forward for further healing. Perhaps their faith in their healing failed. Or perhaps more demons beset them. But they usually returned to their eye-glasses, hearing aides, walkers, wheelchairs, and prescription drugs. So I began to question, not the goodness of the people, but the validity of the claims. Furthermore, I never saw any amputees growing back arms or legs. I never saw the healers take their God-given gifts into children's cancer wards or hospitals. And I saw people who had previously been cured of cancer die. Of course, God was never to blame for these things. If miracles didn't occur or didn't permanently take, it was somehow the fault of someone who didn't have enough faith or the result of more demonic influence. And I began to feel like most people had faith at least the size of a mustard seed. So that kind of ruled out the "lack of faith" scenario for me. And I wondered how strong God was if he couldn't prevent his people from being influenced by demons who were, per Christian doctrine, all defeated at the cross. So, for me, I no longer believe in the claims of the miraculous which violate the laws of nature. If the claims are extraordinary, then the evidence to prove the claims should be verifiable, unquestionable, withstanding the most rigorous scrutiny. I still believe that most of the people within this branch of Christianity are good people. But I don't find that their claims of God's intervention holdup to close examination. In fact, they usually say that faith demands no evidence. I no longer have that kind of faith. Good question. I hope others chime in.

"The Big Web" -- I like that, Soma.

Thank you, Paul. I do think that many of Jesus' teachings have conditions to them. But I tend to think these fall into whether or not a person can be an active and productive member of the community he called "the kingdom of God" which is, IMO, not heaven, not an afterlife. My paraphrase: "If you seek to be with other people who are following this Way, then certain behavior will be expected of you." You simply can't treat people any way you want and think the community is going to be okay with it. This community here at TCPC is similar. How we treat one another is key. If we can't treat one another with dignity and respect, especially when we might disagree on certain beliefs, then it is not healthy for the community. And I suspect that this comes out of our shared value of the worth of every person and the notion that we are all God's children, no matter which path we may be on. I can say that another's path does make sense to me or isn't for me. But to spit upon their path is ungracious and crosses the line of respect.

The first thing to be aware of, Mcarans, is that there is no "Progressive Christian" orthodoxy. Unlike orthodox Christianity, where everyone professes to believe pretty much the same things, those who find meaning and association with Progressive Christianity tend to be free-thinkers. The Eight Points do indeed describe values that we most likely share, but these are values, not doctrines, not dogmas. So the way Progressive Christians view things is going to vary (sometimes widely) from person to person. No one tells us what to think, not even this website. Having said that, I don't put much stock in Rowan Williams' take on the exclusiveness of Christ. I realize that John's community and the early church felt a need for Jesus to be "the only way to God" for them. I suspect that Christianity might not have survived unless it held to such exclusivism -- for that time. But our time is not theirs and vice versa. Human knowledge, even spiritual knowledge, has continued over the last 2000 years. So I no longer see the teachings of the bible or even of Jesus to be "the final world" on anything. I want to remain open to further growth and I can't do that if I think that everything there is to know was disseminated 2000 years ago. As the UCC says, "God is still speaking..." or "Don't put a period where God has placed a comma." The apostle Paul believed it was God's final word that women can't be pastors or teach men. Look at how many women are pastors in mainline churches now. It is, IMO, the Spirit, not the letter of the law, that leads us forward into new truth.

Religious language, like all languages, changes over time, Mcarans. Therefore, it is often helpful to define our terms and the context of how they are being used. Fred Plumer's article shows how "grace", in traditional Christianity, is usually set within the context of the sin/redemption paradigm. In short, this paradigm says that we are born into this world "not okay with God" (the doctrine of Original Sin) and that we need to find a way to get into God's good graces. This doctrine, taken to the extreme, says that we come into this world as enemies of God and that we need to be reconciled to God. Usually, according to traditional Christianity, this is done through Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. But we have to be clear here. When I was growing up, grace was said to be "God's unmerited favor." But the same religion that told me that grace was God's unearned favor also said that I had to "earn" grace by believing correctly, centered in believing that Jesus died for my sins. So within this paradigm, grace was, in fact, a reward for correct belief in Jesus' sacrificial death. We were okay with God only because of 1) what Jesus did and 2) our belief in what Jesus did which made his death personally efficacious for us. In other words, grace came from God through Christ alone based upon our faith in Christ's death. This is not grace. True grace cannot be merited or earned. It doesn't depend on us. I don't believe we come into this world as God's enemies or needing a human sacrifice to make us okay with God. Grace, to me, is the gift of life, the gift of love, the gift of being that each one of us has. It is not earned. Believing in it may enable us to enjoy it, but it doesn't activate it. Grace doesn't depend on me. God is gracious simply because God is a gracious God. In this sense, faith is not some kind of lever or mechanism that I use to get something from God. In other words, I don't believe in order to be saved. I have faith that I am always in God's good graces because of God's goodness. Jesus didn't buy that for me. Rather, to me, he showed us that nothing can separate us from the love of God. That, to me, is grace. Of course, others may see this differently. We tend to be free-thinkers around here.

I found this quote from Michael Dowd and thought I would share it. I've edited it for the sake of brevity: A Manifesto for the New Theism A new breed of theist is emerging in nearly every denomination and religion across the globe, and many of us are grateful to the New Atheists for calling us out of the closet. Just as today's crop of bestselling unbelievers are echoing what was said a hundred years ago, New Theists are re-articulating themes that ignited liberal sensibilities of the 19th and 20th centuries. New Theists are not believers; we're evidentialists. We value scientific, historic and cross-cultural evidence over ancient texts, religious dogma or ecclesiastical authority. We also value how an evidential worldview enriches and deepens our communion with God-Reality-Life-Universe-Mystery-Wholeness. New Theists are not supernaturalists; we're naturalists. We are inspired and motivated far more by this world and this life than by promises of a future otherworld or afterlife. This does not, however, mean that we diss uplifting or transcendent experiences, or disvalue mystery. We don't. But neither do we see the mystical as divorced from the natural. New Theists differ from traditional theists in the same way that secular Jews differ from fundamentalist Jews. Most of us do value traditional religious language and rituals, and we certainly value community. We simply no longer interpret literally any of the otherworldly or supernatural-sounding language in our scriptures, creeds and doctrines. Indeed, we interpret all mythic "night language" as one would interpret a dream: metaphorically, symbolically. New Theists practice what might be called a "practical spirituality." Spirituality for us means the mindset, heart-space and tools that assist one in growing in integrity (i.e., in right relationship to reality) and supporting others and our species in doing the same. It also means an interpretive stance that can be counted on to deliver hope in times of confusion, solace in times of sorrow and support for handling life's inevitable challenges. New Theists are legion; we are diverse. Many of us continue to call ourselves Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or Unitarian. We may also self-identify as emergentist, evidentialist, freethinker, neo-humanist, pantheist, panentheist or some other label. New Theists don't believe in God. We know that throughout human history the word "God" has always and everywhere been a meaning-filled interpretation, a mythic and inspiring personification of forces and realities incomprehensible in pre-scientific times. New Theists view religion and religious language through an empirical, evidential, evolutionary lens, rather than through a theological or philosophical one. Indeed, an ability to distinguish subjective and objective reality -- practical truth (that which reliably produces personal wholeness and social coherence) from factual truth (that which is measurably real) -- is one of the defining characteristics of New Theists. New Theists are religious naturalists. Crucially, we value religion and religious heritage not only as a personal preference but also for its historic role in fostering cooperation at scales far larger than our instincts alone could have achieved. New Theists do not have a creed (we're not that organized). But if we did, it might simply be this... Reality is our God, evidence is our scripture, integrity is our religion, and contributing toward a healthy future is our mission. By "reality is our God" we mean that honoring and working with what is real, as evidentially and collectively discerned, and then creatively imagining what could be, is our ultimate concern and commitment. By "evidence is our Scripture" we mean that scientific, historic and cross-cultural evidence provide a better understanding and a more authoritative map of how things are and which things matter (or what is real and what is important) than do ancient mythic writings or handed-down wisdom. By "integrity is our religion" we mean that living in right relationship to reality and helping others and our species do the same is our great responsibility and joy. By "contributing toward a healthy future is our mission" we mean that working with people of all backgrounds and beliefs in service of a vibrant future for planet Earth and all its gloriously diverse species is our divine calling and privilege.

Welcome, Terri! I'm a huge fan of Jack Spong also, having read a number of his books and listened to many talks he has given. Wish I could be there to hear the good bishop. I haven't yet read his latest book on eternal life, but I'm sure your conference is in for a treat! Best regards.

(3:03AM? You need to get more sleep, my friend. ) What I meant, Joseph, is that, in my opinion, the universe (and more specifically, our world) operates according to natural laws, not as if some all-powerful, all-loving deity was controlling everything. Without getting into Quantum Physics, it seems that natural law holds sway everywhere, not arbitrary supernatural intervention. Now, this doesn't mean that there is not some kind of Creator behind everything that has either put these laws into place or who works through these laws. I don't believe that one can prove that a Creator doesn't exist. And I don't think that one can prove that the theistic God doesn't exist either. Perhaps he is on vacation (ha ha!). But I think there is evidence (evil and suffering in our world, the inefficacy of prayer, the fact that bad things happen to good people, etc.) that the theistic God is most likely a fallacy. Usually, the theistic God is said to love the whole world and to be working everything together towards some kind of ultimate good. This is, I believe, what the Bible teaches. But this claim is a claim of faith, not of fact. I find little evidence to support it. If God can't fix things now, why should he be trusted to fix things later? This is why I said that if God does in some sense exist, maybe God wants us to grow up and stop expecting and waiting for a divine rescuer. Perhaps God wants us to take responsibility for ourselves and our world. I find that notion more empowering (and challenging) than sitting back and waiting for Jesus to return to do his mass cleanup. As always, just my thoughts on it.

Very true, Joseph. Of course, things are defined over and against other things. In this sense, everything that exists is either God or part of God. This option certainly leans more towards pantheism or panentheism than supernatural theism which gives us the dualism of natural and supernatural. BTW, have you seen the movie, "What the Bleep Do We Know?"

Jack Spong shares this very interesting analogy, though I don’t think it is original to him. He says, “If horses had gods, they (those gods) would be horses.” And he similarly says, “A horse can’t tell you what it means to be a human.” If horses could converse, they could share their experiences of humans with one another, but they couldn’t tell you what it means to be human. In other words, it takes one to know one. I think there are two ways to come at what Jack is saying. In the first case, in the theistic view, the notion is that God is a higher being than we are. God is the superlative being, outside of us. We created God, probably to try to deal with our human angst and the problems of existentialism, and attributed to this deity powers that we don’t have, believing that through prayer and ritual that we can get God to intervene and act on our behalf. But because we are not gods, religious tradition holds that we have no chance of understanding God. We simply don’t exist on God’s plane. Now, Christianity makes the claim that Jesus came down from God’s plane to make God somewhat understandable to humans. In other words, because we couldn’t get to God, God, in Jesus, came to us. Unfortunately, the diversity found within Christianity seems to suggest that Jesus didn’t do a very good job. Even amongst Christians, there is little agreement as to who God is and God’s relationship to the world. This makes theism very problematic for our culture when it comes to God-talk. The other way, the notion that I might call the mystical view, is that what we call God is part of us. God is inside us, perhaps as a higher consciousness or as what some may call “Christ.” This way, IMO, focuses more on God as an experience rather than as a being to be believed in. But this view also suffers from the fact that there is so much diversity found with human experience that there is no consensus as to what God is. What we call “God” is different in each person, though, of course, there is overlap because we are all humans. And, as Joseph points out, who amongst us can find words that can adequately and accurately explain our experiences of this God to one another? Poetry and metaphor are better suited to this than prose, but words always fall short. Again, we struggle with God-talk. Having said all of this, I realize that some people are very committed to theism and others are committed to mysticism. As a rationalist who believes we do better to understand reality through science and our five senses, I question the validity of both theism and mysticism. I’m not saying that these views of God don’t work for people and can make people compassionate. I just suspect that BOTH theism and mysticism are human creations originating with our own minds instead of some kind of external or internal revelation of God. But then, everything I’ve just said comes from within my own mind.

I find that to be the case in my own understanding also, Romansh. Supernatural theism, for all of its centrality to mainstream Christianity, presents a deity who is a mystery, whose ways are not our ways, who is ineffable, who, being God, is beyond our understanding. I suspect that Process Theology has tried to "save" theism by presenting God in an alternate view. But I find this alternate view as much a mystery, past my understanding, as supernatural theism is. Speaking only for myself, I've found that it takes too much time and effort to try to "save" theism in our post-Christian culture where we have to admit that there is no evidence or proof for God other than anecdotal claims. To me, the universe operates exactly like I would expect it to if there were no deity in charge and running it. We, not God, are responsible for ourselves and our world. Some may see this as a loss of faith. And I suppose it is. But I see my loss of faith as an embrace of reality as it really is...and I find that empowering.

Thanks for your clarification, Joseph. That's all I was seeking.

Has anyone read this book? "Why Did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road?: Christian Identity in a Multi-Faith World" I haven't read it (yet), but it seems to echo what Joseph has said about religious similarities. I do like Brian McLaren. http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Moses-Buddha-Mohammed-Cross-ebook/dp/B007BGQ9OW

What I'm saying, Joseph, is that I would like to better understand (which requires the mind and thinking) the concept of "the ground of being." If the response to that (to my seeking to understand) is that "the ground of being" is beyond understanding or that it is past words or that it is ineffable, than, yes, there is no sense in wasting time discussing it. No harm, no foul. But you do bring up an interesting subject and I hope you don't mind if I probe you a bit about it. You said: "The problem...is what happens when one confuses the mind for who they are at the deepest level." You speak of "our innermost being." I don't know what your metaphysical view is, but, IMO, without the brain, there is no mind. Without the brain, again IMO, there is no "innermost being." People who have suffered severe head trauma or have had portions of their brain removed have definitely experienced a change in who they are, in their "mind", in their innermost being. That is a scientific fact. Change the brain and the mind and the person changes. Ask anyone with Alzheimers. At the same time, I know that many (most) religions teach that there is a part of us (some call it spirit or soul) which is our true identity apart from our brain or mind. I don't think this view can any longer be substantiated. Modern medicine can dissect the body down to the most minute particles, and there is no sign of a spirit or soul. It simply isn't there, despite what popular religions teach about an "immortal soul" or some other such metaphysical view. There is a sense in which it doesn't matter to me what people believe about such things. (Humor - ) They can believe there are fairies under their front porch, I don't care. But if they insist that *I* accept their claim solely on faith, they have lost credibility with me. I'd prefer to see evidence. As has been said, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." Thanks for the conversation. PS - Oops, forgot to ask my question. Duh! Joseph, if you don't believe your inner self resides in your brain (in your mind), where do you believe it resides?