BillM Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Yes, NORM, I think that would be an interesting thread: If we no longer think of God in anthropomorphic terms or images, does God still need or require worship? Is idolatry still possible? For those of us who chose to do so, how do we worship God if we no longer envision God as a king on a throne who desires our praise and fealty? George, I suppose all of us who call ourselves Christians need or desire certain things from Jesus. This is probably why we have the search for the historical Jesus, the worship of the mythological Jesus, and the experience of the mystical Jesus (another category that I think is relevant for discussion). For me, I see Jesus as a “way” to learn to relate to God and others. This is why, though I hesitate to call him a mediator, I would say that he shows us a path. A telescope helps us see the stars as they really are, but the telescope is not the stars. That is somewhat similar to how I see Jesus. Christianity has often made Jesus the Star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick the Nevermet Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Yes, NORM, I think that would be an interesting thread: If we no longer think of God in anthropomorphic terms or images, does God still need or require worship? Is idolatry still possible? For those of us who chose to do so, how do we worship God if we no longer envision God as a king on a throne who desires our praise and fealty? Please don't insult Norm like that And I don't have this thought out, nor do I have time to right now, but this all ties into my general preference for witness over imitation. A unilateral act of reconciliation has been done (and is eternally being done), and the question is how do we react. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Please don't insult Norm like that Oops! Sorry, Nick! Shows what happens when I write a post offline and then copy & paste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick the Nevermet Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Not a worry. However, I realized I was being too cryptic, so I'll try to quickly explain myself. I do not believe God needs us to worship. As it says in Mark, the sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the sabbath. So, the question then becomes, if it isn't "Do this or else," why should we worship (and pray, and partake of the eucharist, etc)? That's long and complicated, but I always want to avoid coercive threats whenever possible. God needs us to worship him like he needs a starship (Star Trek reference ) Idolotry is always possible. Arguably, it's inevitable. If our attention, our focus, our interest and worship focuses on something other than the invisible god, there's a problem. This means there's a problem often. And Jesus had fascinating and compelling moral teachings, but he's a liminal figure. He's a trickster, and he's closer to a shaman than a high priest (yeah.. showing my heterodoxy there). He's confusing, contradictory, and embodies the Kingdom of God triumphing over the powers of the world. There is hilarious irony that an empire put someone to death they thought was a crazy cultist, yet his small, very Jewish cult ended up taking over the empire and outliving it. We can try to figure out how to live by his teachings, but I don't think imitating him is the goal. Rather, his life (and death) bring the irony of the world into crystal clear focus. We are to witness that, recognize it, and work within Christ to continue making the Kingdom of God as at hand as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Excellent thoughts Nick. One question that came to my mind reading through this thread is, If Jesus is fully God and fully man, is there anything which must be intrinsically unique or singular about this? In other words, is Jesus' God-man status an absolute peculiarity or is it to be considered the first fruits of an as yet unrealized destiny that is cosmic in scope? There is language in the New Testament that seems to point to the latter. If the former were the case, I wonder what might be the "point" of the incarnation; and furthermore, what would it be about Jesus-as-man that makes him ontologically unique from any other man or woman (why couldn't it have been someone else who, while being fully human as we all equally are, happened to also be 'fully God')? Peace, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick the Nevermet Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Excellent thoughts Nick. One question that came to my mind reading through this thread is, If Jesus is fully God and fully man, is there anything which must be intrinsically unique or singular about this? In other words, is Jesus' God-man status an absolute peculiarity or is it to be considered the first fruits of an as yet unrealized destiny that is cosmic in scope? There is language in the New Testament that seems to point to the latter. If the former were the case, I wonder what might be the "point" of the incarnation; and furthermore, what would it be about Jesus-as-man that makes him ontologically unique from any other man or woman (why couldn't it have been someone else who, while being fully human as we all equally are, happened to also be 'fully God')? Peace, Mike Yeah, I'm sympathetic to what you're saying. Perhaps "fully" is a matter of magnitude, and some people are more human(e) than others, and some are more in touch with God/The Infinite/Whatever. The mystery of how one could be fully human and fully divine then becomes akin to someone setting a record (i.e., how on earth could someone score 100 points during a basketball game, etc.) than being ontologically unique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Not a worry. However, I realized I was being too cryptic, so I'll try to quickly explain myself. I do not believe God needs us to worship. As it says in Mark, the sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the sabbath. So, the question then becomes, if it isn't "Do this or else," why should we worship (and pray, and partake of the eucharist, etc)? That's long and complicated, but I always want to avoid coercive threats whenever possible. God needs us to worship him like he needs a starship (Star Trek reference ) Even if we no longer believe in God and the bible in literal supernatural terms, I think there are still benefits to the ritual aspects like prayer and communion. We know from scientific research on Buddhist monks that prayer can have powerful mental benefits even if it doesn't have a supernatural effect. The communion has been an ancient tradition in the Christian church dating back centuries and even if you don't believe the communion wafer literally becomes the body of Jesus anymore, it's still a powerful experience to partake communion every week together with Christians all around the world going back to ancient times. But if we no longer think of God and the bible in literal, supernatural anthromorophic terms, the idea of worship no longer becomes about "How do I best earn God's favor through perfecting myself in worship?" but rather it becomes "How do I use worship as a powerful force to help others?" As you point out, the sabbath was made for humans and not humans made for the sabbath. Jesus also says throughout the gospels that we worship God by giving to the poor and feeding the hungry and that if we give a cup to someone in Jesus' name, we will never lose our salvation. I know the church for centuries has demonized works-based salvation, but I think church worship should change to being about doing good works for others rather than about having correct beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javelin Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 Some time ago now I began a quest to gather as much authenticated information as possible about God, Jesus, and the Bible. I have, for all practical purposes, completed my research. The historical evidence I’ve become familiar with indicates the existence of God, at least for me, cannot be conclusively discounted so that possibility has to remain on the table. The existence of a man identified as Jesus of Nazareth is speculative at best. The lack of evidence that such a human being ever existed arguably outweighs the likelihood that he did. Assuming such a person did exist, the likelihood that he was in any way some combination of human and supernatural spirit is virtually nonexistent. I am unaware of any creditable evidence that would even suggest such a thing is possible. Additionally, the evidence I’ve studied indicates unambiguously the bible is fully human in origin and content. The historical evidence further suggests it was written more for political purposes than religious ones. When read in the context of a divine instruction manual it becomes problematic on many levels because it is replete with inconsistent and contradictory teaching. Much of the New Testament writings appear to be fabrications that evolved from decades of oral stories. It is well known that there are no first person eyewitness accounts for any of the supposed events that took place in the New Testament. The NT writings, except for Paul’s epistles, are based on hearsay. A number of authors suggest that Paul’s encounters with the risen Christ were visions rather than personal encounters and that Paul understood Jesus as a Spiritual being and never envisioned him as ever having existed in human form. That, of course, is pure speculation on the part of the authors and is based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. The similarities between the Jesus story and other popular pagan god/man stories of that time add additional layers of concern about the factuality of the NT and the god/man Jesus. The supposed teachings of the man Jesus aren’t unique either. Other mystics said many of the same things and said it long before Jesus did. I was a devote fundamentalist for 40 years but the obvious inconsistencies and contradictions found in the bible eventually motivated me to find reasons for such flaws. The tyrannical OT God and the NT God of grace and mercy also became impossible for me to reconcile. Those problems were solved when the evidence convinced me the bible is fully human in origin and content and it simply reflects the beliefs, understanding, and evolving traditions of the cultures that produced the stories. Eventually I stumbled across the concept of Deism and that made more sense to me than anything else I’d encountered. That allowed me to accept the existence of God without the baggage that comes with supposedly revealed sacred writings obtained through supernatural encounters with the Divine. I acknowledge that Christianity has been a positive influence for multitudes of people throughout history. Much good has been done in the name of God and Christ. I have no ax to grind with Christianity per se, it simply reached the point, for numerous reasons, that traditional Christianity no longer resonated with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick the Nevermet Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Even if we no longer believe in God and the bible in literal supernatural terms, I think there are still benefits to the ritual aspects like prayer and communion. We know from scientific research on Buddhist monks that prayer can have powerful mental benefits even if it doesn't have a supernatural effect. The communion has been an ancient tradition in the Christian church dating back centuries and even if you don't believe the communion wafer literally becomes the body of Jesus anymore, it's still a powerful experience to partake communion every week together with Christians all around the world going back to ancient times. But if we no longer think of God and the bible in literal, supernatural anthromorophic terms, the idea of worship no longer becomes about "How do I best earn God's favor through perfecting myself in worship?" but rather it becomes "How do I use worship as a powerful force to help others?" As you point out, the sabbath was made for humans and not humans made for the sabbath. Jesus also says throughout the gospels that we worship God by giving to the poor and feeding the hungry and that if we give a cup to someone in Jesus' name, we will never lose our salvation. I know the church for centuries has demonized works-based salvation, but I think church worship should change to being about doing good works for others rather than about having correct beliefs. Lots of good stuff in there. Wish I had a better response than, "...yep" (my worse response would have been... verbose) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Javelin, I appreciate your well-written post. Deism is, for me, a half-way house. Deism, as I understand it, doesn't hold to the notions of "the Sky-God and His Superman-Son" that much of Christianity does. Neither does it relegate God and Jesus to mere creations of human imagination as atheists do. It respects the ancient notions that God is real while looking to evidence, within and without, that substantiates those notions. And it reveres Jesus as a sage, as a wisdom teacher who taught "the Way" in his time and place whereby people could recognize and enjoy their oneness with God without going through the formal religion of first century Judaism that, according to Jesus, was corrupt. As a deist, I experience what I call God almost daily in some conscious way i.e. I'm aware of the Spirit's presence. And as a deist, it doesn't really matter to me whether the human Jesus existed or not. As you've said, many of his teachings surface time and again in human history. Jesus' teachings would have been just as true if someone else had taught them. I just use the term "historical Jesus" to point to these, imo, wise and transformative teachings that are underneath the layers of mythology that, I believe, the Church put there in order to control the Christian religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Javelin, As I read your opening post and your follow up responses I could think that it was me doing the writing and describing my own journey from faith and belief to knowledge and understanding. I have long since removed the word believe from my vocabulary unless it is preceeded by the word don't. I trust the scientific process. I think of the life force as god and there is no need to worship god who is in us all. I've posted these ideas here on another thread but I'm not sure exactly where. I think they are appropriate for this discussion so forgive me please for being redundant. These are my thoughts on the subject. I am not a Christian by most standards people use today. My understanding of God is based on reason and my reason tells me that there is a universal, natural, immutable force governing all that exists, all that has ever happened and all that will happen. I call it the life force; a triune force of consciousness, truth and love. This force permeates everything and guides evolution toward ultimate perfection. The force I describe is called God by most people but the force doesn't love any of us, it is love; it doesn't give consciousness, it is consciousness; it doesn't know truth, it is truth. The life force is in us all and all we need to do to be in harmony with it is accept it, and learn to understand it. The bible stories about the character Jesus speak to me of his understanding of the life Force and how he understood himself as being one with it. He understood the truth of consciousness and love, the consciousness of truth and love and the love of truth and consciousness. Before the sciences evolved as we know them today as natural laws which are provable and understandable there was philosophy. I think that there is reasonable evidence to deduce that a philosopher named Jesus lived and taught a following of likeminded disciples. I think the ideas he was teaching were politically incorrect and he was killed because of them. As with many legendary figures like Daniel Boon, Davy Crocket or Wyatt Earp, many fables were made up about him but there was a kernel of truth to his legend. He knew he was no more a child of some anthropomorphic god than any of us, he referred to the life force as god or father and he understood that life force is in us all. He was a teacher and he used parables as teaching aids. Ignorant people took him literally and the more enlightened understood the metaphors he used. He shared his knowledge with those who would listen to help bring them into harmony with the life force and each other. He understood that death to our life experience was equally as important as birth. Stories about him show us how to see death as a part of mortal life and how life force will leave our mortal bodies but will continue to exist universally. His teachings are often misunderstood, politicized and they are used by men with an agenda to gain wealth and power. Christianity became an organized religion with teachings that bear some resemblance to the original meaning of the lessons. Christianity is a man made religion like other religions. It has been used as a political weapon to subdue entire civilizations of non-believers. We don’t know where Jesus went to school or learned what he taught; it could have been Egypt, Babylon or another advanced civilization; perhaps even more advanced in understanding than we are today in some ways. We don’t know for sure if he existed but I suspect that some teacher fitting a similar description did and stories were told of his teaching and of the conflicts they caused. He taught with parables. The gospels telling stories of his miracles are metaphors taken literally. Does anyone believe he really raised Lazarus from the dead or that he himself came back to life and floated up into the sky above the clouds? Many Christians say they believe and their whole belief system is based on literal translations of metaphors. They accept these stories because they trust the sources like children trust their parents and teachers. The things we all share with each other are our humanity, the space we exist in and life force. In my understanding the Life Force is what others refer to as God. When I hear the parable of the greatest commandment and the Good Samaritan I think of the life force or God as being in us all and how all of us are one in spirit even though we are separate in physical body. I don’t often quote the bible but to make a point that Jesus understood the life force, God, as I do remember this verse: “I pray that they all may be one; as thou, Father, are in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” Substitute the word "believe" with "understand" and the lesson here seems clear that we are all one in the life force and the life force is in all of us. The prayer was that we would all come to understand that oneness as an immutable fact. When we love God above all things and love our neighbor as ourselves it is because the truth is we are all one in the life force of love, truth and consciousness. We are all equal in the Life Force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick the Nevermet Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Wayseeker, I'm not a Deist, but I have to say that was a concise and clear statement of what you believe and why. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 But it is my belief that as the church moved more and more into Greek culture with its notions of gods and demigods, that Jesus eventually came to be understood as deity, as God himself. And though I am no longer a literalist, I can’t help but wonder if the church unwittingly fell into idolatry when it began worshipping Jesus as God. A reflection of God? Yes. The image of God, as the apostle Paul asserts? Yes. But God himself? I just can’t swallow that pill, despite being raised in that kind of Christianity. Wayseeker, I find a lot of common sense in your words and wish to add a few observations along the same lines. BTW, in reading through some of the subsequent responses, I found myself nodding my head in agreement. Excellent thread we have going here - excellent. And this is precisely the kind of dialogue I seek on these fora. I think that it is important to build on the understanding that we do not worship a sky-king, man-god or supernatural encounter of the religious kind, but, rather; embrace an "IDEAL" notion of humanness embodied at times within the Jesus story. And further, that we recognize this ideal in other faith expressions throughout history in Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Humanism, and yes; even Atheism. Whenever, throughout the course of human evolution, an individual, group of individuals, or some reaction to a human event (9-11 comes to mind in the US) fosters a movement - whether it resonates "spiritually" or through law, civil discourse or some action / actions - that we resist the urge to elevate it to the realm of deity or supernatural significance, but recognize it for what it is: just another step forward in human evolution, or as my Jewish brothers and sister are prone to declare; another advancement in the Kingdom of G-d on Earth. I anticipate reading Bishop Spong's new book, Re-Claiming the Bible for a Non-religious World ( http://johnshelbyspo...eligious-world/ ) which appears to be very much in the vein of this present discussion. NORM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javelin Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 I want to thank Harry, Wayseeker, and Norm for their thoughts. I do not possess the skill to express my understanding of the Divine, or Life Force, as effectively as they do but they have communicated what I believe to be mostly likely true about God, Jesus, and the Divine. I find nothing in their thoughts that I would disagree with. It is comforting to find likeminded folk. Thank you ever so much for your thoughts. I find much comfort and encouragement in your words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I’ve enjoyed this thread a great deal also, and appreciate EVERYONE’s input. I did want to mention one other thing about my kind of deism that may be a bit different from some or, maybe most, deists. Many deists view God as the Creator or the Source of all that is (though they would likely hold to evolution as to how God creates). But they often tend to think that God then left the universe to run on its own. This is the “watchmaker” view that critics of deism criticize. God is, in this view, the watchmaker who created the clock of the universe, wound it up, and then either abandoned it to run on its own or watches “from a distance” to see what happens. This kind of deism doesn’t make sense to me because, if evolution is God’s mechanism for creation, then God is still “here”, still creating. The universe is not “done” yet. As a panendeist, I think that, metaphorically, God created the universe within God’s self, so there is nowhere for God to “go” that we are not “in God.” This lines up with the biblical notion of God’s omnipresence, that God is Spirit and is everywhere. And because I think that this was one of the central truths that Jesus held to and taught, that God is an ever-present and everywhere-present Spirit, I call myself a Christian deist (despite the misgivings I’ve posted elsewhere about calling myself a Christian). Jesus, imo, pointed to the ever-present reality of God that all of us have access to if we have eyes to see and ears to hear. Therefore, as I mentioned, I’m a deist who experiences God not just by looking at the creation without (what God did in the past), but by the awareness of God within (though subject to my own human subjectivity). So unlike many deists, I do affirm that God is still “here” and very much involved with us and in us. But I’m skeptical of the supernatural claims of theists that God continually breaks the laws that God established to govern our universe. And I’m skeptical that we can get God to do something through prayer. I’m more inclined to think (and practice) that our Creator has given us this world and each other to care for, and that being filled with or being led by the Spirit enables us to do that, regardless of what label we wear. ws Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javelin Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 ....., I’m a deist who experiences God not just by looking at the creation without (what God did in the past), but by the awareness of God within (though subject to my own human subjectivity). So unlike many deists, I do affirm that God is still “here” and very much involved with us and in us. ......... As a panendeist, I think that, metaphorically, God created the universe within God’s self, so there is nowhere for God to “go” that we are not “in God.” This lines up with the biblical notion of God’s omnipresence, that God is Spirit and is everywhere. And because I think that this was one of the central truths that Jesus held to and taught, that God is an ever-present and everywhere-present Spirit ws I have come to a similar conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.