glintofpewter Posted October 21, 2009 Author Share Posted October 21, 2009 Someday I'll figure it all out, but for now I'm okay with the mystery. The more I participate here the more mystery I willing to accept. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted October 21, 2009 Author Share Posted October 21, 2009 Chapter 8 Young described the flying dreams of my youth surprising well. He must of had them too. "Weren't you always running around killing people in the Bible?" Papa avoids responding to the Biblical record. Young spends more time with "hierarchy" than I found necessary. "You are the ones who embrace fear and pain and power and rights so readily in your relationships. .. I will use every choice you make for ... the most loving outcome." May it be so. Papa claims agency in the long run (God's timeline) and denies agency in the short term (human timeline). This seems to be the wait 'til heaven argument to understanding evil, hurt and pain. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllInTheNameOfProgress Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Just a couple of comments before I have to run off. I liked what Papa said about authority, even if it did run on a bit. I've always been one who bumps my head into the wall of social hierarchy, so maybe that's why I appreciated the issue being taken on. I was also glad that Young has Papa indicating there are no favorites and that God does not need to punish anyone, because sin is its own punishment.But so far, I don't like the idea that everyhting is according to a purpose. At least that reason is so we can join in God's circle of love. More later. Janet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllInTheNameOfProgress Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I remember being pretty disappointed when I first read the book that Papa sidestepped Mack's questions about how God is portrayed in the Bible. Young indicates a belief that Papa does not behave like the angry God Almighty of the Bible, but doesn't seem to have the guts to say that humans had a false idea of what God was like when they wrote the Bible. What are your thoughts? Janet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest billmc Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I remember being pretty disappointed when I first read the book that Papa sidestepped Mack's questions about how God is portrayed in the Bible. Young indicates a belief that Papa does not behave like the angry God Almighty of the Bible, but doesn't seem to have the guts to say that humans had a false idea of what God was like when they wrote the Bible. What are your thoughts? Janet I really need to go re-read this chapter. But I've never let my ignorance prevent me from voicing an opinion. I think you're right, Janet, Young hasn't yet dared to say that humanity's view of God and what God desires has changed down through the ages. Christianity is so hungup on God being immutable that it can't see that our lenses of God have and do change. Of course, there is still "process theology" that, I think, asserts that God does change. I wouldn't really want to argue one way or the other on the issue. Either way, how we perceive God has changed. But this radical notion runs through my head and it would certainly get me thrown out of most churches. That notion is this: if Jesus really does perfectly reflect the fullness of God, then, in Jesus, we do NOT see an "Almighty" God. And the occasions when we see, in him, an angry God are few and far between. The kind of God we see in Jesus is not almighty, all powerful or in control. The kind of God we see in Jesus is just as subject to the wrongdoings of this world as the rest of us are and he endures the suffering. To me, Jesus is not the incarnation of Yahweh, but the embodiment of the suffering servant, a God who serves by loving, accepting, forgiving. Jesus seemed to shy away from any offer of earthly power or "all-mighty-ness". He didn't come to be served but to serve. And even when the title is claimed for him of "Lord", that title stands in contradistinction from the way that earthly "Lords" are who desire, if they could, to be all-powerful. So what do you think? Do you often think of Jesus as all-powerful? Do you think that Jesus changed after his resurrection to where he could say, in Matthew 28, "all power is given unto me, in heaven and on earth"? Or is Jesus' power still much the same now as it way back then, the power, not to force, but to love and accept? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllInTheNameOfProgress Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Bill, thanks for your ideas. Good questions! I can feel Jesus' heart shaping mine, but I don't fear Jesus as the all-powerful punisher. I would like to think that humanity keeps getting smarter, understanding God better. When I was younger, I used to hate the song "Be Careful Little Eyes What You See," because I looked at it in terms of a punitive God, who would send people to hell if they sinned and didn't confess each sin and confess their faith in Jesus. It didn't seem like a God I would worship. I like the idea that I got from Casting Crown's version - that it is easy to get sucked in to really wrong things, when originally things just seem a little gray. Therefore, the song is just a loving warning. I digress... Janet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest billmc Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Just a couple of quotes from chapter 8. Ya'll have already hit upon the stuff that got my attention also. "He (Mack) admitted to himself that he liked Jesus a lot, but he seemed the least godlike of the three." Interesting observation. Have you found this to reflect your own experience at all? "Sin is its own punishment." I like this in principle. But I still don't think this explains larger evils such as diseases, natural disasters, and the law of life and death. "It is like looking at a parade through the tiny knothole." What Papa is alluding to here is how limited human vision is, that we can only see life as a series of events that are sometimes joyous and sometimes painful and that we can't see the "whole thing" to see how good it really is, taken as a whole. I don't find explanation very helpful because Papa is falling back on the old Romans 8:28 perspective that tends to dismiss real pain and suffering. Logically, if I look through the "tiny knothole" of life and I see pain and suffering, then what would make me think that the entire parade is not made up of the same thing? If we have pain and suffering here, including natural disasters, diseases, etc., what makes us think that "eternity" is really going to be any better? In my field, as in many fields, we take samples of things in order to get a better look and perspective on the whole. The more samples we take, the more likely it is that our samples represent the true condition of the whole thing. If most of our samples are defective, then it stands to reason that the whole thing is defective. With 6000 years of recorded human history, the samples that we have show that life consists of the search for meaning and significance in a world of joy and pain, happiness and suffering. All of these samples don't convince me that life is necessarily bad; it is what it is. But neither do they convince me that a time is coming in which everything will be set right and all the negative aspects of human existence will exist no more. That is a nice dream. It is something worth striving for. But I don't see it as "true reality". To me, what is real is the mess and the wonder of what we have now. Anyone else care to contribute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted October 23, 2009 Author Share Posted October 23, 2009 but doesn't seem to have the guts to say that humans had a false idea of what God was like when they wrote the Bible. Janet, It is interesting that Young would bring the elephant into the room and not talk about it. I wonder if it is there so liberals and conservatives can think what they want without it interfering with the story. It would have been hard to have Mack not say anything about it, but easy to have God not speak to it directly. So what do you think? Do you often think of Jesus as all-powerful? I can feel Jesus' heart shaping mine, I agree - I didn't think Jesus was All-anything except love. "Sin is its own punishment." I like this in principle. But I still don't think this explains larger evils such as diseases, natural disasters, and the law of life and death. Parents are supposed to let children deal with natural consequences whenever possible. Bill, while diseases, disasters and death result in pain and sorrow, I don't see them as evil. They are what they are. And God seeks to be with us in our suffering. "It is like looking at a parade through the tiny knothole." Logically, if I look through the "tiny knothole" of life and I see pain and suffering, then what would make me think that the entire parade is not made up of the same thing? I hadn't thought of it that way. It does deflate the rhetoric. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllInTheNameOfProgress Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 ""He (Mack) admitted to himself that he liked Jesus a lot, but he seemed the least godlike of the three." Interesting observation. Have you found this to reflect your own experience at all?" Only in the sense that Jesus was at one time human flesh and blood. God and the Holy Spirit have always seemed formless (pure Spirit) to me. Is that what you were getting at, Bill? Sometimes I wonder if sin really is its own punishment. It seems like some people really are never in touch with the consequences of their own behavior, and unless it gets really bad, society doesn't do anything about it. I wonder if selfish people who make other people suffer really suffer themselves. And then, conversely, there are those of us who emotionally beat ourselves up for the smallest mistake. I, personally, can relate to the idea that God doesn't need to punish me, because I recognize how much better I could be doing already. Bill, I actually do have hope that our world is getting more enlightened and that one day God's kingdom will come here on earth. There are exciting things happening (like the Charter for Compassion) that would not have happened a generation ago. Think of the civil rights advances that have been made, the scientific discoveries that have been made. I admit that in many ways I am a Pollyanna... You're right, Dutch, that the way Young handled the questions about God being the angry punisher in the Bible probably helped the book be more readable by more people. That's one thing about this book -- I have found that the way I interpret some of it is mostly a function of the lens I am looking through. More about that later. But in this chapter I should let you know that the hierarchy conversation was very troubling to my evangelical friend, who says that Jesus is definitely subordinate to Papa. I don't remember where the Holy Spirit fit in the ranks :-) That's all I've got for now. Janet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest billmc Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Bill, I actually do have hope that our world is getting more enlightened and that one day God's kingdom will come here on earth. There are exciting things happening (like the Charter for Compassion) that would not have happened a generation ago. Think of the civil rights advances that have been made, the scientific discoveries that have been made. I admit that in many ways I am a Pollyanna... I have the same hope, Janet, and that is the way that I would describe it -- hope. Not a wish-full hope like, "I hope it rains tomorrow", but a hope that calls me to action, a hope that calls me out of passivity as a bystander to an activist that works to see change. For me, there is a difference between one who has hope and an optimist. The optimist looks at the problems of the world as says, "Ahh, it'll all work out" or "Don't worry, God will take care of all this someday." One who lives in and with hope looks at the same world and says, "We're part of the problem and we're part of the solution. What can we do or start to do today to change things?" I very much agree with you about the progress that humanity is making, overall. It seems like everyday there is a new breakthrough in medicine or technology that, if used correctly, could make our world more like the kingdom of God. The problem is that we are an immature race that doesn't always have the wisdom it needs to know how to ensure its survival. Our progress has placed within the hands of deviants the capability to destroys thousands or even millions of people at a time. This is why we really need something like "Charter For Compassion". We don't need to just talk about our advances, we need to talk about our differences that would tempt us to use those advances in harmful ways. So, yes, I'm hopeful about the future. But I'm not an optimist. I don't think if we just sit back and watch, that things will get better. My hope, both in the future and in God, call me to get involved in doing whatever I can to make this world a better place. I don't think that's being a Pollyanna, I just think it is taking the beauty and wonder of all of God's creation seriously enough to neither throw it in a trash can nor to just expect "Papa" to clean our rooms for us. After all, when Jesus announced the breaking in and availability of God's kingdom, he married that proclamation to a need for repentance and change on our parts. Good conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllInTheNameOfProgress Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 We're right on the same page with this one, Bill! Well put! Janet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted October 24, 2009 Author Share Posted October 24, 2009 Bill Sometimes I wonder if sin really is its own punishment. You make me think. Maybe "sin" has boundaries or horizons and if they change then the punishment may change. For my brother money was a good and not earning or having it was a sin. However he chose to do it in his own little world. Then Medicare fraud investigators "widened his horizons" about the nature of sin. A new "sin" and a new punishment. This seems to apply in relationships when partners or spouses bring to our attention a new "sin". Yes I think selfish people are not aware of what you or I might call a "sin" and may live and die without knowing it. We each construct our value system and world and tell our stories based on them. Have you seen "Bucket List". Nicholson's character had a value system that you and I might find fault with. He might have died without transformation - and no punishment - unless we are waiting for hell. that the hierarchy conversation was very troubling to my evangelical friend Yes, Janet, I would expect that for some. The hierarchy of his Trinity supports the places of men and women, the hierarchical construct of society and government, authority, etc - and a sure and certain world. since I may not be at the computer until Sunday some comments about Chapter 9 For me, there is a difference between one who has hope and an optimist. The optimist looks at the problems of the world as says, "Ahh, it'll all work out" or "Don't worry, God will take care of all this someday." One who lives in and with hope looks at the same world and says, "We're part of the problem and we're part of the solution. What can we do or start to do today to change things?" Yes how else would we have a vision of a better world. In Chapter 9, my least favorite so far, we humans are all of the problem and God is the all of the solution. I don't mind that I have to dig in the messy garden of my life but I do mind being told that the stinging nettles might be a "bad" in human eyes but not in God's and that our human sinning is responsible for all the bad in the universe. So are the stinging nettles God's good or human's bad? If we affected the whole universe by our actions then we can be as selfish as we want because we are all powerful. which humanoid was it that did this universally awful act? Ardi? Erectus? Now that I got that off my chest, my favorite passage is: "Oh, Mackenzie," reassured Sarayu. "Don't you think we have them [person with cancer or father whose daughter is dead] in mind as well?" Each of them was the center of another story that is untold. I mentioned this concept before because it is a new concept to me whether it is Young's or another's. Sounds like "Mind your own business" to me and I am intrigued that it is offered as a twist on how we should think about hardship, disease, disaster, violence, war, etc. If you are in it then work it out with God. If you are not in it, then you can't see where God is working. Is it a restatement of "You don't know God's ways" argument or is it something new? Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest billmc Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 I mentioned this concept before because it is a new concept to me whether it is Young's or another's. Sounds like "Mind your own business" to me and I am intrigued that it is offered as a twist on how we should think about hardship, disease, disaster, violence, war, etc. If you are in it then work it out with God. If you are not in it, then you can't see where God is working. Is it a restatement of "You don't know God's ways" argument or is it something new? You certainly bring up some good stuff to think about, Dutch. I don't have much "free time" this morning, so I'll just rattle off a couple of things that come to my mind on this topic. First off, for me, life and death is a mystery. I don't understand the cycle but I do see beauty in it. I've faced my own mortality and I'm okay with it, I'm not at all scared to die. If anything, I'm more afraid that I'll never really live. Here in America, we seem to take it as a God-given right that we should all live into our 90s with relatively good health and financial security. Everyone wants to be able to sit with their spouse in rocking chairs on their front porch in their Golden Years. God knows that the reality of this seldom happens. Nonetheless, it seems to be the default view of most people. So when someone dies at the age of 20 or 30, we say they "died before their time." And if they die as infants or children, it is often considered a tragedy. We expect life to be long. We tend to measure life, not by quality, but by quantity. I personally know a number of people who have lived long lives that are bitter and in poor spirits. I don't want my last years to be that way. I know that old age has its challenges and that "we can't win." And I certainly don't want to live long enough that I have Alzheimer's or am a burden to my children. So I plan on offing myself when I am 70. But until then, I want to live. I do believe that God is a mystery. But I don't think he is in control of the day we are born and the day we die i.e. fate. So I don't know if being "in" with God gives us any more perspective and insight on life than what non-Christians do. In fact, I think some other religions have way more practical insight on the wisdom of a good life than what Christianity typically offers. What I know that I no longer subscribe to is the dualistic paradigm that God is only working in and through Christians and so they are the only ones who have any answers to life. I see God at work wherever compassion is working. That doesn't mean that God is not ontologically in other places, but that, IMO, God is seen to be mostly at work in people that are compassionate (Christian or not). I don't know if God has a "big plan" or not. Jesus certainly did not fulfill what the OT said messiah was supposed to do. Maybe Jesus is, in some sense, an iconoclast for the idol that humanity has that God is running everything. But I do know that God has given me enough information to know how to live my life today...so that's what I endeavor to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest billmc Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 I, too, found this chapter to be the least satisfying, theologically. There are some interesting thoughts here, but much of it is far too based in a literal understanding of Genesis and Augustinian views of the fall to be helpful to me. Mack thinks of Sarayu, She obviously is not a being who is predictable. Okay, we already know that Young is portraying God in quite anthropomorphic terms, while, at the same time, insisting that God is nothing like us, especially in this chapter. God seems to be telling Mack that Gods good has absolutely no relation to human good, an idea that I find incomprehensible and not helpful at all. Sarayu tells Mack, concerning creation, But when I created it, it was only Good, because that is just the way I am. How smug. How nonsensical. Even if the story of the Garden of Eden where literal, God allowed the evil serpent in there, didnt he? Why put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in there at all if God never wanted Adam and Eve to eat from it? That is like me putting a box of matches in my 10-year-old sons room and then telling him to never touch them or play with them. What kind of good parent would do that? Furthermore, being an evolutionist, I dont at all by into this creation was once good and then man ****ed it all up mentality. Sarayu says, Having chosen the ravaged path of independence, you dont even comprehend that you are dragging the entire Creation along with you. Yeah, right. So just because 2 people ate an apple 6000 years ago: We have earthquakes, tsunamis, tide waves, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, famines, droughts? We have diseases that have wiped out scores of humans over the centuries? We have poisonous plants and animal? And Alpha Centauri, the Andromeda galaxy, and the entire local group of galaxies are affected? Sorry, I dont buy it. Concerning poisonous plants, Sarayu says, But if I direct you to touch, that is different. Stupid. Like Jesus supposedly telling his disciples to handle snakes and drink poison and everything will be a-okay. Stupid. I found Macks explanation of what he considers to be good immature: I guess I would say that something is good when I like it (how utterly selfish)-when it makes me feel good (how hedonistic) or gives me a sense of security (again, totally selfish). My definition of good is much broader, good is something that is life-enhancing, that works against selfishness in order to build community. Sarayu claims that there is no darkness in her, just a mere few paragraphs after Mack sees her colors shift into darker hues. Sarayu says, concerning Missys death: A child is protected because she is loved, not because she has the right to be protected. Young doesnt have the guts to then question how, if God is so damned fond of Missy, why didnt God protect her? So, overall, I thought this was a stupid chapter, offering pat answers by, again, putting forth the idea that God is totally good while humans are totally evil and THAT is why we have all the crap that we do. And, furthermore, we are warned that we have no right or capacity to judge what it means for God to be good. This is, IMO, pure authoritarian garbage that says that God can kill millions of people in a flood or call on his people to slay their enemies and that God is still good for doing so. Sorry, I dont buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest billmc Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 One other note, while I'm on my rampaging rant: I really disliked the Light/Dark and Good/Evil analogy. Granted, analogies, metaphors, and other symbolic language can only take us so far in understanding concepts, but I find this analogy logically and morally flawed. Sarayu says that just as darkness is not anything of itself, but only the absence of light, evil is not anything of itself, only the absence of good. I find this flawed in that neither darkness nor light has any intrinsic moral value to them. While they might be symbols, the characteristics of darkness and light have nothing evil or good about them. In fact, light can give us sunburns, something we definately would not consider to be good. And darkness can provide us with places to shut the world out, if we so desire. Sarayu is saying, IMO, that if all good were to be removed from the universe, only evil would remain; just as if all light were to be removed from the universe, only darkness would remain. But I don't find this to be convincing or true. To me, evil is not the LACK of good, but the TWISTING of good for selfish gain. While it is good for me to provide for my family, it is evil for me to steal from someone else in order to provide for my family. While it is good for me to want my wife, it is evil for me to want any woman that I see. To me, evil is not the result of removing good, but of twisting what is good for one's own selfish gain. So I don't think that if all good were moved from the universe (if that were even possible) that we would be left with a morally evil universe. We would simply be left with an "innocent" or morally neutral universe. All of this brings me back to what Sarayu says about creation's fall. In the first place, it would be wrong to blame Adam and Eve for disobeying God because, at that time, they had no sense of right or wrong, obedience or disobedience. One is only guilty if one knows the right thing to do (which they didn't, being innocents) and does the wrong thing. In the second place, things of creation that humanity has labeled as "acts of God" (earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, etc.) have no intrinsic moral value to them, they just happen as part of the physics of our planet. They are not immoral or evil in and of themselves, they only become so when the results of these "tragedies" are not addressed properly by humans. Or they might be considered evil if, within the conservative Christian view, Satan still rules this world and has power over these things. Anyway, I am reluctant to in any way lump poisonous plants in the same category of evil as that of Missy's killer. I don't find poisonous plants to have any morality to them, but I would definately consider Missy's killer to be a sicko. So I don't find it convincing that our universe would be totally evil if God were somehow not here. Life and death would still go on on a cosmic level (planets, stars, galaxies, etc.) without any moral value attached to them. It is, I believe, our deep-seated desire to find some meaning in these lifecycles that caused us to event religions in the first place. It is not at all comforting to know that things live and die all around us without any apparent "reason" but that is what happens. Which, to me, makes life all the more precious and worth caring about. It is knowing how rare and precious and unique Missy is that would make her killer evil, not just a resort to the Mosaic commandment not to kill (which the Israelites violated with every new tribe they met). Okay, I'm done ranting now...I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted October 25, 2009 Author Share Posted October 25, 2009 In church this morning I was noticing my judgments about an individual so I thought, "See the Christ in them." I wondered how that would look visually. Young's various descriptions of Sarayu came to mind. I liked that. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllInTheNameOfProgress Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 I'm sorry I've been sick and busy. Today has been a GREAT day, because I'm making progress on my project to celebrate the Charter for Compassion!! Hooray! I loved the idea that our souls are a mess when we analyze them closely, but from a distance they are fractals, but I have to agree with you guys, that I hated the ideas that everything was Good until man spoiled it all. I consider the story of the Garden of Eden to be a story -- man's attempt to explain why (if God is good) there is evil in the world. Harold Kushner's fine book How Good Do We Have to Be? has as its thesis that the Garden story actually records the birth of the idea that man has free will. We would actually be stunted creatures if that event hadn't happened -- never required to make decisions for ourselves. But back to this book... I have always had trouble with the idea that good and evil are so subjective. I believe we are capable of discernment. I was really relieved that for those of us who believe the Eden story is a myth, our mistake isn't fatal AND that Sarayu is still very fond of me... The statement that "A child is protected because she is loved, not because she has a right to be protected." Seemed to imply that Missy was not loved??? I do think some of us are caught up too much on obtaining our personal rights. When communities were smaller, it was easier for people to think of the greater good of the community. I agree with you, Bill, about the light/dark good/evil analogy. Your logic exceeds Young's. However, I don't think you should pick a number like 70 to think life's not worth living after. My folks are 72 and still making the world a better place. Dutch, your point about the suffering ones being at the center of another story is a good one. For me it speaks to the idea that people can often grow through suffering. But, I don't think we should ever look from the outside and say to the person, "God is giving you this challenge for a reason." If suffering ever develops into something positive, it is between that person and God. I have been thinking "I'm particulary fond of them" quite a bit. It helps me see others with God's eyes a bit better. Janet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest billmc Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 I'm sorry I've been sick and busy. Today has been a GREAT day, because I'm making progress on my project to celebrate the Charter for Compassion!! Hooray! I'm glad you're feeling better, Janet. I joined First United Methodist yesterday, mainly because they are really pushing CFC and have a very progressive element in that church. I have been thinking "I'm particulary fond of them" quite a bit. It helps me see others with God's eyes a bit better. Yes, it's a thought that kind of sticks in your head, huh? It's funny how we can take something which, from overuse, has become trite-sounding like "God loves you", change it to "I'm particularly fond of you" and get a whole new spin. Not to sound combative, but I can't help wonder what it means that God is particularly fond of someone if he is particularly fond of EVERYONE? If everyone is God's favorite person, is anyone God's favorite person? Or are these just "terms of endearment" that can't be taken literally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted October 27, 2009 Author Share Posted October 27, 2009 Janet, Glad that you are feeling better. the Charter for Compassion is exciting, partly because people of all faiths or none are joining. The statement that "A child is protected because she is loved, not because she has a right to be protected." Seemed to imply that Missy was not loved??? Makes no sense to me. No sense at all. But, I don't think we should ever look from the outside and say to the person, "God is giving you this challenge for a reason." I agree. I think the point is that one can't observe God's work from the outside of the story. We must enter into the story and join with those who are suffering and with the God who suffers. It's not about logic and judgment, it's about being and doing with those who suffer. My cousin is a doctor in Denver who works with contagious diseases, specifically AIDs and TB, and will quickly say that he does not believe in God because if God were Good, then two of his brothers would not have died of a genetic disease. His mother, if asked, would tell you that she experienced God's comfort in the suffering. And probably for some of those patients with AIDS or TB what the doctor is doing is often recognized as the work of God. I thought I would have more of a point here. Maybe that's as it should be. One, my cousin, is helping the suffering and saying that their suffering proves there is no God and another who is suffering may say the doctor's help is from the God who suffers with us. I guess, since my cousin, is working and standing in the midst of the suffering, he may say the God who let this happen can not be Good and, therefore, the Good Creator God does not exist. I would agree. Stuff happens because this creation becoming is dynamic and changing. What it is or where it came from has nothing to do with God's intent, her power, or any other attribute. When stuff happens God yearns to be in relationship with us and is available as a companion for the journey in all it's celebrations and sufferings. The Loving Becoming God does exist. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest billmc Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Dutch, Janet, Just wanted to say that I appreciate both of your thoughts and contributions on this chapter. Sorry my last few posts have been so...caustic. It's foolish for me to react this way, because deep down I know that I don't believe in the kind of God Young is portraying anyway. So it makes no sense for me to be angry at something that doesn't exist, at least for me. On the other hand, I do think this kind of portrayal of God does alot of damage, obviously to some people more than others. I grew up with "Jesus is the Answer", expecting him to readily give me all the answers to my questions or at least to be able to point me to somewhere in the Bible where the answers could be found. And I grew up with the portrayal of God as the Protector, the Rock, the Savior, the Shelter in the Time of Storm who, though a thousand fell to the left and right, would not let a hair on my head be harmed. Obviously, life has taught me different. It is hard to let go of these old images of God because 1) they were ingrained in me at such a young age 2) the scriptures themselves lend some credence to these portrayals and 3) it is comforting to think that God is in control and can rescue. I was recently listening to a podcast of Karen Armstrong and she was relaying a story of a few rabbis sitting around arguing over how to interpret a particular portion of the Law. They couldn't reach and agreement and, finally, God himself showed up to set the record straight. Upon hearing the "correct interpretation" from God, they disagreed, even with him, and told God that the truth was no longer in heaven, but in the human heart. God went away, muttering to himself, "My children have defeated me. They have grown up." I'm not exactly sure how this ties in with what I'm trying to say, except to say that we humans try so hard to claim to know how God works and what God is doing...and we so often get it wrong. Nonetheless, I appreciate that you both affirm that we have got to come back to a God of love...even if we don't understand why he doesn't do things the way that we would if we were him. I want to believe...Lord, help Thou my unbelief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllInTheNameOfProgress Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 I have appreciated what you've written, Bill, and I haven't found it caustic at all! You make good points, and I am not offended, because I don't see God as a vending machine/natural-law suspender either. I do hear in your writings that belief in the all-powerful, take care you God has brought pain into your life. I'm hoping that your FUMC will be a community of love where they put that love to good use in the world. With a focus on the Charter, I think it is likely!! Dutch, thanks for sharing the story of your cousin and his mother. I can see where they are both coming from. God doesn't have any favorites. God loves us all. I was at a Lutheran church for boy scouts the other night, and their book study title intrigued me: 8 Questions God Can't Answer. I told my son (age 15) that I had been thinking about it and couldn't think of any questions God can't answer. He replied, "That's easy. I can think of one!" I was amazed, since this is my skeptic... the question is "Who's your favorite?" I thought that was brilliant, and told him so, but he said, "You don't think I listen in church, but that was the topic of one of the sermons last week. Come on!" This is my son that came home from Sunday School at age 3 and said, "Is my skin made of dust?? Cause the Bible says people were made of dust, and I don't believe that." It will sure be interesting to see where my two boys end up in the faith equation. The good news is that we have been dialoguing for a LONG time, and they know it's okay to think for themselves. Wow! That was a major digression, but it was at least as good as Chapter 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllInTheNameOfProgress Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 I'm taking a break from shoveling snow to comment on Ch. 10. I liked the part about Jesus freeing us from fears. For me, that is not because God is going to protect me from situations, but rather, God will be with me no matter what. I have struggled with this a lot in the past. I used to HATE Jesus' teaching like -- don't worry, the birds don't. Walking on water sounded fun. It was interesting that Young brought an earth-abuse agenda into the book. The description of nature around the lake was beautiful. I have found it to be true that submission is a more natural response if I am following Jesus' teachings. And I know my husband was relieved when I told him I no longer expected him to be God, to fulfill all my needs. So as much as I'd like to argue with Young's stereotypical writing, I read some truth in it. My mind is resistant to the idea that woman was taken out of man and that all the males were birthed through the original woman and thus through God. I also haven't experienced Jesus coming to live inside of me. I have experienced that when I focus on living the teachings of Jesus, I am more aware of healthy changes I can attempt to make, relying on the power of God to help. The more I try to glorify God with my life, the more I begin to see with God's eyes, etc. It's probably just a different way of saying it... What did you think about Ch. 10, guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest billmc Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 For me, that is not because God is going to protect me from situations, but rather, God will be with me no matter what. Janet, your statement intrigues me. In some ways, I feel as you do. But I sometimes wonder, how does the fact that God is with you, rather than protecting you, bring you joy or peace or comfort? I'm not looking for a right or wrong answer, just wondering, from your perspective, what difference it makes to have an all-powerful being with you if that all-powerful being doesn't do something to protect you? Any thoughts on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted October 30, 2009 Author Share Posted October 30, 2009 I think other Chapters deal with the issues here better and that this is just expected imagery - walking on water My mind is resistant to the idea that woman was taken out of man and that all the males were birthed through the original woman and thus through God. I find the woman hid in man passage to be a contradiction of the statements against hierarchy - and objectionable. I think it places women in a subordinate class whose role is to provide men, and the supreme male, Jesus, who then brings us back to God. Janet, your statement intrigues me. In some ways, I feel as you do. But I sometimes wonder, how does the fact that God is with you, rather than protecting you, bring you joy or peace or comfort? I'm not looking for a right or wrong answer, just wondering, from your perspective, what difference it makes to have an all-powerful being with you if that all-powerful being doesn't do something to protect you? Four or five weeks ago I had an appointment with my new doctor to discuss my recent hospitalization. This was to be the first time we met. I was anxious and perhaps embarrassed about the circumstances of that hospitalization; I was defensive. We touched three issues on the surface without connecting. My experience of that appointment was not good; my judgments were flying and I expected that he was also making judgments. In retrospect I thought I may even had misheard him. I scheduled another appointment because I felt this one had gone so poorly. This time I was expecting to have a good encounter, an honest encounter, and I was willing to give up my defensiveness nad some of my judgments about the doctor so that I might see him differently. The second appointment went well. I talked about how my anxiety may have contributed to my symptoms and we discussed how that might affect the diagnosis. Dr. Mazzella was now not a skinny kid from the east with a nasal high pitched voice but someone who could help me be healthy. I had to give up my fears, my embarrasment and my expectations about doctors who look like they are 16. When I expected the worse that is what I experienced. When I was open to something better that is what I experienced. I don't think it was a matter of hoping for the best, but being open to something real and perhaps better. I think such experiences can result from different approaches. Being like Jesus, next to Jesus, having Jesus inside, doing the work of Jesus or seeing others do the work of Jesus - I think any of these can work for different people or at different times Being on a mountain top, in a deep river canyon, on the horizonless prairie - or leaving the hall of a cancer ward and coloring with a child in a room - or bringing your family's favorite casserole instead of mac-n-cheese to the homeless shelter - or sitting quietly in the warm sun and feeling the breeze - if we are expecting to experience a divine love I am pretty sure it will happen in any of above situations. That is food for the journey. I don't believe that God is all-anything except loving and that love is similar to the love of parent for a child, a spouse for their partner. When we work out of love for another we want what is best for them, but we can not stop much of the stuff that happens. Car accidents, cancer, failing grades, unemployment. What we can do is come alongside comforting listening suffering. So does God, the divine. In the Christian tradition we focus on the God of love as the center of our story. Days begun in prayer (whatever that looks like) and allowing ourselves to feel loved - those days end better. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllInTheNameOfProgress Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Janet, your statement intrigues me. In some ways, I feel as you do. But I sometimes wonder, how does the fact that God is with you, rather than protecting you, bring you joy or peace or comfort? I'm not looking for a right or wrong answer, just wondering, from your perspective, what difference it makes to have an all-powerful being with you if that all-powerful being doesn't do something to protect you? Any thoughts on this? I just looked at the forum again. We had a haunted house for neighborhood trick or treaters last night and worship today, so I haven't had time for computing. I agree that this question is not a right/wrong answer one, but I love open-ended questions I guess the way I would describe it is this: having God with me helps me gain perspective on bad situations. God's energy helps me find more creative solutions and tap new resources. Sometimes human relationships can be spotty during bad times, and thinking God loves me and is by my side, crying along with me, just makes me feel better. Once I wrote a song about it, after my best friend's brother died in a tragic car accident and she asked me the same question: "God gives us strength, God grants us wisdom, God sends us power, God gives us energy to survive and to love" Does that help you understand where I'm coming from at all?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.