God Needs Salvation!

[Antlerman]

A friend of mine commented to me last night that religion's time has passed and will soon fall behind us. This is something that I have been looking at for some time, how that the fundamentalists' claims to their faith having a literal historical and scientific foundation, and is absolute in its accuracy, injures the human spirit by forcing the human mind to deny the reality of life all around it. This effect is to make the meaning of "God" in the human experience, not a transcendent symbol of higher hope, but instead a symbol of some unpleasant annoyance that tries to make itself higher than its own Creators in a perverse and twisted image of them.

 

I feel there is a positive place for religious symbolism in the human experience, so long as it remains a source of transcendent inspiration of emotional/spiritual ideals that promotes peace and reconciliation in the world, and not a substitute for critical thought. The Hebrew God was once used as symbol for governance in an ancient nation by the power of a united tribal priesthood. "He" was beneficial as "giver" of a set of codes and laws for the priests to govern a people. People found personal meaning in this national symbol through belonging to a cultural system of rituals and traditions of a people.

 

However, in a greatly cosmopolitan society, such as the entire planet is today through mass communication, narrow views of tribal deities and priestly theocracies sets that cultural/faith system at odds with the real world its people live in, where they have to try to reconcile other culture's equally meaningful views of the world through systems and symbols that are not their own. If the God System does not evolve to meet the changing culture it serves, then God on a personal level becomes meaningless to the peoples "cosmopolitan identities".

 

Fundamentalism is reactionary. It is based on fear. Fear of change, and fear to control. It is the heavy hand of a reactionary priesthood fearing a loss of power and control. The literalist longs for the good old days where the priests ruled with divine power, where the answers were clear and simple.

 

Mainstream religion has been slow to adjust to the rapidly changing world, and the promises of quick and easy black and white answers to deeply complicated issues appeals to those who are not finding a sense of personal meaning in a world of religion still speaking to cultures over 100 years before. Science and academic knowledge, though a powerful tool of intellectual enlightenment, does not speak to the issues of personal identity and meaningful responses to the world. That is not its purpose any more than a horse is a tool of air travel.

 

If "God" cannot be modified sufficiently by His modern Creators to function for people in today’s world, then the fundamentalist will see to it that their dragging up the old God and the old culuture, will sufficiently kill him for any possible meaning for people living in this modern world tommorow. Jesus and Jehovah will be as much a relic of the past as Zeus, and the fundamentalists will be God's final executioners.

[Open_Minded]

Mainstream religion has been slow to adjust to the rapidly changing world, and the promises of quick and easy black and white answers to deeply complicated issues appeals to those who are not finding a sense of personal meaning in a world of religion still speaking to cultures over 100 years before. Science and academic knowledge, though a powerful tool of intellectual enlightenment, does not speak to the issues of personal identity and meaningful responses to the world. That is not its purpose any more than a horse is a tool of air travel.

 

If "God" cannot be modified sufficiently by His modern Creators to function for people in today’s world, then the fundamentalist will see to it that their dragging up the old God and the old culuture, will sufficiently kill him for any possible meaning for people living in this modern world tommorow. Jesus and Jehovah will be as much a relic of the past as Zeus, and the fundamentalists will be God's final executioners.

 

Antlerman... there is much truth to what you write. Mainstream religion HAS been slow toadjust to the rapidly changing world. You are right....

 

But... I would say that if humanity can not let go of having to invent "God" then the extemists will win.

 

The problem with religion is that it thinks it must "prove" God exists. God does not need our puny defenses, rationalizations, explanations, proofs, etc... anymore than atomic matter needs our defenses, rationalizations, explanations, proofs, etc...

 

Humans provide these types of things for their own benefit - these things do not benefit God, nor anything else they are applied to.

 

In our attempts to squeeze that which I - and many others - call God into the pint sized ideas of our puny brains we have sucked the spiritual life and meaning out of mainstream religion. Father Keating teaches that when one enters Christian meditation the only purpose is to remain open to God, "as God is, not as we understand God".

 

The biggest single mistake of Christianity has been to forget this one simple little truth. We prefer our known theology to the Unknowable, pure and simple.

[Antlerman]

But... I would say that if humanity can not let go of having to invent "God" then the extemists will win.

Yes, I think that's what I seeing. I know I'm repeating what I've said before but I would say any attempt to redefine God to fit the framework of modern society will have to completely remove him from the mundane and the temporal, and place Him beyond the reaches of rationality. If they merely try to refine the old pre-scientific views of God in the universe, they make Him less than transcendent, and as such God is weakened in the human experience, becoming suspect and doubtful.

 

If God is approached as non-rational, then "definitions" no longer apply, nor can God be "dethroned" through knowledge. Books of "divine" authoritative rules and laws bring God into the realm of the rational, and subject to justified questioning when temporal "proofs" are offered to prop up its claims to "divine" absolute authority. If religious books are understood as man's strivings towards the sense of higher meaning in his own response to the universe, then man will have moved "God" out of the earthly and into the transcendent plane of ideas, hopes, and love.

 

If I understand what you are meaning to say, you are right: they need to let go of inventing God, and just respond to the universe with their hearts. In that sense, God will be created new by man. God will be saved, as a meaningful symbol for humanity.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

I feel there is a positive place for religious symbolism in the human experience, so long as it remains a source of transcendent inspiration of emotional/spiritual ideals that promotes peace and reconciliation in the world, and not a substitute for critical thought.

 

Oh, if that were the way of things what a better place the world would be. But it is not, so I'll go back to oiling my gun for the G.A.W.D organization for when it comes to fruition.

 

a symbol of some unpleasant annoyance that tries to make itself higher than its own Creators in a perverse and twisted image of them.

 

Yep yep yep, could not have said it better myself. Amen brother! If you wrote a book, I'd read it. If you were a preacher man, I'd follow.

 

But... I would say that if humanity can not let go of having to invent "God" then the extemists will win.

 

We can only hope and pra....whoa I almost said the p word...I will go self flatulate....ok, now I have to leave the room.

[Seabiscuit]

Antlerman, this discussion is off to a speed and fantastic start. I'm so happy you let me know or I'd be way behind!

 

(I'm super clumsy with the quote function, so I'll make my own!)

 

Antlerman said: "However, in a greatly cosmopolitan society, such as the entire planet is today through mass communication, narrow views of tribal deities and priestly theocracies sets that cultural/faith system at odds with the real world its people live in, where they have to try to reconcile other culture's equally meaningful views of the world through systems and symbols that are not their own."

 

Yes, yes! When I gave up my connection with God, I hadn't realized that my connection was my own. It made sense in my life. In a way I owned or still own that connection. Bible god was the old world of systems and symbols that wasn't my own. A covering of sorts that I was forced to wear and later thought I should wear it.

 

On another note:

 

I've been reading a book by Donald B. Calne, Within Reason: Rationality and Human Behavior. Here's a quote that really set me back:

 

"Reason, like instinct and emotion, has evolved to facilitate the attainment of biological goals. Curiously, we have often found it easy to use reason in a harmful way. Chekhov's prophetic words, written a century ago, have a contemporary ring: "Man has been endowed with reason, with the power to create, so that he can add to what he's been given. But up to now he hasn't been a creator, only a destroyer. Forests keep disappearing, rivers dry up, wild life's become extinct, the climate's ruined, and the land grows poorer and uglier every day." (p7)

 

I'm not sure I agree with our being destroyers. If that were true, there wouldn't be people out there like you, OM, Soul in Crisis, or many others.

 

If, however, we're born with varying levels of reason, why have we not mastered symbols and ideas that bring us closer to a belief system that enhances our lives? Can a personal ownership in a spiritual experience meet our biological, emotional, and intellectual needs?

 

What puzzles me is that in almost every religion and across many cultures, people constantly come up with very similar ideas of the creator. If we have the ability to create, then we are free to create our end of a spiritual connection--shaping that experience, those symbols, and that system. What keeps us from thinking outside of the "god box?" Maybe our god experience is limited because our ability to reason is subjective by our emotions, desires, and heart. For many people, including myself for a long time, see emotions, desires, and heart stuff as icky and difficult. It was appealing to me for a time to rid myself of those traits and embrace objectivity and solid reasoning. My inability to accept myself limits my visibility of my God, my connection.

 

s

[Open_Minded]

What puzzles me is that in almost every religion and across many cultures, people constantly come up with very similar ideas of the creator.

 

Seabiscuit ... have you ever heard of the book: ONENESS: GREAT PRINCIPLES SHARED BY ALL RELIGIONS by Jeffrey Moses?

 

http://www.onenessonline.com/

 

For my own part I've found great comfort in the fact that humanity has come up with similar ideas of the creator. To me it means we're all looking and searching for the same thing. On a very subtle level we sense this ..... (presence????) for lack of a better word. And on subtle levels we find very similar things when we have these experiences. This dynamic points us to something that transcends religious notions about what God is.

 

If we have the ability to create, then we are free to create our end of a spiritual connection--shaping that experience, those symbols, and that system.

 

See ... I think that is what humanity is beginning to come to grips with. In a way we do have the ability to create our end of the spiritual connection. But, historically, humans have gotten too caught up in creating our end of the spiritual connection. At some point we have to let go ... and just be willing to experience .... to take the leap.

 

Now our species has reached the point where science and historical/archeaological study of the world's sacred texts makes the literal concepts of god impossible to swollow. And this frightens people in very real ways - ways that end up producing violence towards other human beings.

[pandora]

Seabiscuit: I think the evolutionary psychology of religoin and attachment theory have a lot to say as to why we do tend to create Gods. Not all religions are the same, by the way... but there are a few general categories that all religions fit into.

 

I am still reading the book that covers this kind of stuff. Maybe when I am done I'll post about it. It's really complicated, so I can't explain it yet.... but do a search on attachment and psychology and you should find something about it.

[Amanda]

Antlerman, incredibly insightful as always!

 

 

I will say that it seems spirituality is changing with society in some ways though. Finally, I watched that movie that was recommended to me so many times on here.... What the Bleep Do We Know? There seems to be more and more scientific minds that seem to recognize something behind the screen, sort of speak... maybe the great Wizard!

 

This show gives great emphasis on consciousness and intent. They claim a study done on meditation can have great effects! Many now talk about God as the 'Observer' that we all truly are in this vehicle we call our body. We are NOT our thoughts, but we are the 'awareness' of our thoughts.

 

This show, and another called Mindwalk, say that there is really very little matter. It is basically an illusion. What we really have, according to these shows, is just a lot of energy!

 

Maybe everything is just parts of God?

 

 

[jrmarlin]

The biggest single mistake of Christianity has been to forget this one simple little truth. We prefer our known theology to the Unknowable, pure and simple.

I don't know where you got the "We" part but this part of the "We" says, are you kidding?

 

I have to disagree with this statement - adamently. As people have become more and more knowledgable with regards to science, the need to believe in this false creation and theological explaination becomes more and more extinct. Look at how many people walk around today never going to church - not setting one foot in a church except to maybe get married. But even that is falling out of "vogue."

 

To think that people "need or prefer" theology is simple proposterous to say because people are less likely to go to church now more than ever.

 

It has been proven time and time again -- even on this website -- that xianity stunts a person's ability to interact with the real work around him/her. It shows that it discourages any forethinking or independent thoughts. It completely eradicates history and scientific fact by either dismissing it altogether or re-writing it to suit their (fundamentalist's) own purpose. I can't even begin to tell you how many xians tell me that the founding fathers of this country were xian, yet every book they have written, every book written about them, clearly states the contrary. How can a reasonably intelligent person say that Thomas Jefferson was a christian when he says, "Christianity is the most perverted thing ever shone to man...." How can someone reasonably deduct that this man was a xian? Well, O_M, that's re-writing history to suit one's need to placate a belief system that is dying.

 

Look at people like Ben Franklin, "Christianity is evil and discourages common sense and rational thought." That's a christian? Well, a lot of xians say so...

 

This illogical thought process is being found out by more and more people walking on this earth now... now moreso than ever in history. Xian values are flexible at best, lienent on the "believers" yet everyone else can go to hell? This is unconditional, universal love? I hardly think so. Look at the brutality, the bloodied, the absolute inhumane treatment xians have leveled on all other societies, religions and sub-groups. This is "Love thy neighbor" With a postfix of "Except if you're gay, rich, poor, a smoker, a drinker, a Jew, a Buddist, an Atheist, an Agnostic, a drug abuser, a Wiccan, a Druidist, et al."

 

Xians have never practiced brotherly love except for the "ass kissing" they do on church on Sunday morning. The See-Ya-On-Sunday-Jesus set that show up, pray to be forgiven for last week's indiscretions and sins, leave, go to breakfast so they show off the flashy clothes, jewels and cars -- only to wake up on Monday morning, ready to start the new Week of Sin syndrome all over again. That's hypocritical of them. And it would be stupid to keep such idiot moronic behaviors and beliefs alive.

 

I have heard it said many times, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result...." That is Xianity right there in a nutshell.

 

Xianity has been dying a very long and slow death. Perhaps you don't see it in your sector of the world but I have certainly seen it in mine. People don't believe in God because God is constantly being "discredited" by Xians. And Xians do not have the backstage, easy track pass to rock n' roll heaven. They never have and they never will... so their belief system keeps dying because more people are "waking up" to intelligent, logical and common sense thought as opposed to hysterical, fanaticism that seems to be all too prevalent in the xian religion.

 

So please, tell me you're joking. Tell me the whole message was meant with bitter sarcasm - please tell me that an intelligent person such as yourself - does not truly buy all the hooey of this fanatical, bastardized subset of clique culture.

[Open_Minded]

The biggest single mistake of Christianity has been to forget this one simple little truth. We prefer our known theology to the Unknowable, pure and simple.

I don't know where you got the "We" part but this part of the "We" says, are you kidding?

 

<snip> for space only.

 

So please, tell me you're joking. Tell me the whole message was meant with bitter sarcasm - please tell me that an intelligent person such as yourself - does not truly buy all the hooey of this fanatical, bastardized subset of clique culture.

 

When I used the word "we", I used it because I am Christian and those of us who consider ourselves Christians own part of the problem. WE have the responsibility to speak out when we see other Christians clinging tightly to theology - to the detrement of true spiritual seeking.

 

I do think this problem can be found in other religions as well.

 

Does this answer your question?

[jrmarlin]

When I used the word "we", I used it because I am Christian and those of us who consider ourselves Christians own part of the problem. WE have the responsibility to speak out when we see other Christians clinging tightly to theology - to the detrement of true spiritual seeking.

 

I do think this problem can be found in other religions as well.

 

Does this answer your question?

I have seen your answers on here, O_M. You're too friggin' smart to buy that crap. Stop trying to convince me you are an Xian. A Deist. Yes. A Wiccan - that's stretchin' but maybe. But a Xian. I don't buy it. Why? Here's why:

1. You're too nice.
   
2. You're too kind.
   
3. You care far too much about others than the average xian running around.
   
4. You have common sense.
   
5. You appear to be very intelligent in most of your posts.
   
6. Your posts makes sense and you use words that are often bigger than one syllable.
   
7. You are chasing Chris Vedagi all over the world to confront him on his idiocy.
   
8. You can go into the Lion's Den and come back week after week.
   
9. You are not ignorant.
   
10. You seem to have a good head on your shoulders but minus the a-typical xian chip.
    
11. You do not witness. At least, not that I have seen on here.
    
12. You don't get your panties all in a bunch when someone disses xianity.
    
13. You don't try to hit everyone with versus and incantations of some ancient cartoon.
    

Now, either you are some neo-mutated, christ-chromosone deficient Xian that is rare -- or you are really another religious endeavor altogether, you are not the run-of-the-mill-TBN-watching-Xian.

 

 

BUT, if you tell me you own a Caddy, I might believe you....... well, maybe not.

[Open_Minded]

I have seen your answers on here, O_M. You're too friggin' smart to buy that crap. Stop trying to convince me you are an Xian. A Deist. Yes. A Wiccan - that's stretchin' but maybe. But a Xian. I don't buy it. Why? Here's why:

1. You're too nice.
   
2. You're too kind.
   
3. You care far too much about others than the average xian running around.
   
4. You have common sense.
   
5. You appear to be very intelligent in most of your posts.
   
6. Your posts makes sense and you use words that are often bigger than one syllable.
   
7. You are chasing Chris Vedagi all over the world to confront him on his idiocy.
   
8. You can go into the Lion's Den and come back week after week.
   
9. You are not ignorant.
   
10. You seem to have a good head on your shoulders but minus the a-typical xian chip.
    
11. You do not witness. At least, not that I have seen on here.
    
12. You don't get your panties all in a bunch when someone disses xianity.
    
13. You don't try to hit everyone with versus and incantations of some ancient cartoon.
    

Now, either you are some neo-mutated, christ-chromosone deficient Xian that is rare -- or you are really another religious endeavor altogether, you are not the run-of-the-mill-TBN-watching-Xian.

 

 

BUT, if you tell me you own a Caddy, I might believe you....... well, maybe not.

 

Well .... thanks.... I think .... Jmarlin.

 

I have to confess that I'm usually the last person in a room to get the joke, so .... I'm not quite sure if you're serious or teasing me.

 

But, I do take it as a compliment that you find me different. Most of the time when people find me different - it's often in an insulting way.

 

So... I'll take my compliments where I can get them.

 

------------------

 

Now back to one of Antlerman's posts....

 

If God is approached as non-rational, then "definitions" no longer apply, nor can God be "dethroned" through knowledge. Books of "divine" authoritative rules and laws bring God into the realm of the rational, and subject to justified questioning when temporal "proofs" are offered to prop up its claims to "divine" absolute authority. If religious books are understood as man's strivings towards the sense of higher meaning in his own response to the universe, then man will have moved "God" out of the earthly and into the transcendent plane of ideas, hopes, and love.

 

I liked what you said about the need to approach God in a non-rational way. What I would add is that there is a need to approach God in an abstract way, rather than in a concrete way. The Ultimate Reality is beyond rational. It is beyond concrete - it is VERY abstract. The problem is most people are uncomfortable with abstract. Most people want black/white clear cut answers. And this is why we have theology instead of spirituality.

 

If I understand what you are meaning to say, you are right: they need to let go of inventing God, and just respond to the universe with their hearts. In that sense, God will be created new by man. God will be saved, as a meaningful symbol for humanity

 

Antlerman, I agree that humans just need to "respond to the universe with their hearts". Where you and I see things differently is more in the wording than our actual approach - I believe. To me - God doesn't need to be "saved" because God is more than a "meaningful symbol for humanity".

 

To me "God IS". But, the problem is that humans go beyond that concept and try to boil "THAT WHICH IS" down to a something we can grasp hold of. And THAT is where the violence enters in. Because suddenly THAT WHICH IS becomes THAT WHICH I OWN WITH MY THEOLOGY.

 

I do understand why you say, "meaningful symbol for humanity". After all, words are just that - symbols. I guess I am focusing on the wording to try and get underneath it, for both of us. I am making an assumption - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that for you the word "God" does not symbolize an "end result" for lack of a better term. For me the word "God" points to something which I can not fully grasp - but which I still feel IS.

 

See .... I don't think God is "created by man". I think God simply IS. Man creates the image of God, I will say this. But, in the end - for me - there is an ISness underneath and through it all - that the word points to.

 

I don't believe we are all that far apart in our thinking - to me it's a difference in focus alone. But, I do look forward to your response as I may have misunderstood what you were saying.

[jrmarlin]

O_M, that was surely meant to be a compliment. You are not one to fit into the A-Typical Christian mold. You are a very sincerely, intellignet and often quite eloquent individual -- even if you do waste your time on human tater tots like Chris V-whatever the fuck his last name is....

 

You rock!

[philo]

jrmarlin said:

 

I liked what you said about the need to approach God in a non-rational way. What I would add is that there is a need to approach God in an abstract way, rather than in a concrete way. The Ultimate Reality is beyond rational. It is beyond concrete - it is VERY abstract. The problem is most people are uncomfortable with abstract. Most people want black/white clear cut answers. And this is why we have theology instead of spirituality.

 

In my life I've moved from being a Christian (20) years, to an agnostic (10), to choosing atheism for the past few years. What I lost in the move from agnostic to atheism was some false ideas about spirituality. Spirituality is a difficult term to describe. It is abstract, and as Antlerman seems to indicate it's something to the effect of a lofty, wonderful, mystic, appreciation for all that is good, that the fundies are ruining. There are hints of this brilliant "spiritual" attitude in the Bible by some of its characters, but they are few and far between. I suppose there are even some fundies that are spiritual, but they are in the wrong crowd to foster their spirituality.

 

My God Genes tell me that some, not all people, carry with them this wonderful sense of the beauty of life that is typically referred to as spirituality. The feeling moves us to find God, but when we come up empty handed, we think spirituality dies along with our disbelief. I think as Antlerman these days:

 

Having left Christianity, I now feel more of a Christian than when I was in it!

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, I agree that humans just need to "respond to the universe with their hearts". Where you and I see things differently is more in the wording than our actual approach - I believe. To me - God doesn't need to be "saved" because God is more than a "meaningful symbol for humanity".

 

To me "God IS". But, the problem is that humans go beyond that concept and try to boil "THAT WHICH IS" down to a something we can grasp hold of. And THAT is where the violence enters in. Because suddenly THAT WHICH IS becomes THAT WHICH I OWN WITH MY THEOLOGY.

 

I do understand why you say, "meaningful symbol for humanity". After all, words are just that - symbols. I guess I am focusing on the wording to try and get underneath it, for both of us. I am making an assumption - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that for you the word "God" does not symbolize an "end result" for lack of a better term. For me the word "God" points to something which I can not fully grasp - but which I still feel IS.

 

See .... I don't think God is "created by man". I think God simply IS. Man creates the image of God, I will say this. But, in the end - for me - there is an ISness underneath and through it all - that the word points to.

 

I don't believe we are all that far apart in our thinking - to me it's a difference in focus alone. But, I do look forward to your response as I may have misunderstood what you were saying.

I agree that our response to the universe is of a kindred spirit. Intellectually though it has always been a struggle because of where I've come from, and likely my own use of language fails to convey what I mean. When I say man creates God, I don't mean necessarily sitting down in ecumenenical conferences and laying out a theology about God. I largely mean that God is because we are.

 

From your perspective I'd like to ask, if an asteroid shattered our planet into shards of broken rock hurling though empty space, and all life on this planet was obliterated, would God still exist?

[Open_Minded]

I agree that our response to the universe is of a kindred spirit. Intellectually though it has always been a struggle because of where I've come from, and likely my own use of language fails to convey what I mean. When I say man creates God, I don't mean necessarily sitting down in ecumenenical conferences and laying out a theology about God. I largely mean that God is because we are.

 

From your perspective I'd like to ask, if an asteroid shattered our planet into shards of broken rock hurling though empty space, and all life on this planet was obliterated, would God still exist?

 

Weellllll Yesss - and I'm only pausing in my response because the question befuddles me, in a way.

 

I want to say, "well of course, the Alpha and Omega does not need the earth for Its own existence"

 

And I think - what your getting at - is that in your mind the answer would be "no"?

 

I really do look forward to your thoughts - because (if nothing else) you've given me much to think about.

 

 

O_M, that was surely meant to be a compliment. You are not one to fit into the A-Typical Christian mold. You are a very sincerely, intellignet and often quite eloquent individual -- even if you do waste your time on human tater tots like Chris V-whatever the fuck his last name is....

 

You rock!

 

Well ... thanks Jmarlin I mean that....

 

(And I'm blushing)

[philo]

I thought this an interesting question as well:

 

If an asteroid shattered our planet into shards of broken rock hurling though empty space, and all life on this planet was obliterated, would God still exist?

 

Mind if I ask what characteristics you'all think this god might have?

 

You all seem to be leaning toward an impersonal God. Just wondering because I'm not sure there's a connection between the desire people have to find god and how this desire proves that there might be a god.

[Open_Minded]

I thought this an interesting question as well:

 

If an asteroid shattered our planet into shards of broken rock hurling though empty space, and all life on this planet was obliterated, would God still exist?

 

Mind if I ask what characteristics you'all think this god might have?

 

You all seem to be leaning toward an impersonal God. Just wondering because I'm not sure there's a connection between the desire people have to find god and how this desire proves that there might be a god.

 

Hello Philo:

 

Well... let's see before I jump in and answer that question - I'd like to go back to what I wrote above.

 

I liked what you said about the need to approach God in a non-rational way. What I would add is that there is a need to approach God in an abstract way, rather than in a concrete way. The Ultimate Reality is beyond rational. It is beyond concrete - it is VERY abstract. The problem is most people are uncomfortable with abstract. Most people want black/white clear cut answers. And this is why we have theology instead of spirituality.

 

To me "God" is very abstract and when humanity uses language to communicate about God, we tend to get caught up in human understandings of the words at hand. Language is need to communicate -but it has severe limitations.

 

For instance - I do believe God is "personal" rather than "impersonal". But - and this is VERY important - I am NOT using the word "personal" in the sense that we usually use this word. I guess - to expand on my thoughts - I would say that humans EXPERIENCE God in VERY personal ways....

 

"That Which Is", "The Alpha and Omega" pervades all of existence and so it would only be natural that we would experience this, and relate to it, in intimate and personal ways.

 

Does this answer your question?

[Antlerman]

For instance - I do believe God is "personal" rather than "impersonal". But - and this is VERY important - I am NOT using the word "personal" in the sense that we usually use this word. I guess - to expand on my thoughts - I would say that humans EXPERIENCE God in VERY personal ways....

 

"That Which Is", "The Alpha and Omega" pervades all of existence and so it would only be natural that we would experience this, and relate to it, in intimate and personal ways.

 

Does this answer your question?

Ok, here's a thought: The universe is personal to us because it has meaning to us. A non-descript stone on the road is impersonal because it has little value to us overtly. The universe, because it offers the basis for our existence has a great deal of meaning to us and we therefore have a personal response to it. The universe is meaningful to us. We relate to it from a personal, emotional response, life is personal. Existence is personal. The universe is personal to us. We relate to in personal ways.

 

It occurred to me as I read the above, much in the way that when one blurs his eyes a pattern emerges, that your use of the word God seems identical to how I use the Universe, or the World, or Existence, or Life. So yes, humans experience the universe (or God) in "VERY personal ways".

 

If we understand and relate to life, or the universe, or "God" as it were in this way, personally because we find meaning to thing that provides the environment that gives us our lives ("in him we live and breath and have our existence"), then how can someone answer the question if all humans were dead, would "God" cease to exist?

 

I was driving at the question of whether you viewed God as existing independently external to the human experience. But if "God" is what we call that quality of existence that we embrace as meaningful, or significant, or personal, then the answer to whether God exists outside of us is intrinsically bound to our definitions of the universe. It is bound into our sense of meaning.

 

"God" is the meaning of life to us, the quality of universe that we respond to as personal because of its significance to us. It is how we understand life on an aesthetic level. So to imagine our absence from the universe, we define that aesthetic quality of existence with the only language we can, as it as it is to us today - as we respond to it in a personally meaningful way. "It" would continue, and the face of what that would look like, is the face we know it by today. The universe would continue, and we call it "God" or some other nature that conveys that ineffible quality to life that we perceive. It is how we see the universe, therefore "it" continues.

 

Ok, I apparently need to go to bed. I'm too tired to try to formulate my thoughts better than this...

[philo]

Open_Minded . . . you're response here is vague to me ;

 

"That Which Is", "The Alpha and Omega" pervades all of existence and so it would only be natural that we would experience this, and relate to it, in intimate and personal ways.

 

It almost sounds a bit like pantheism. But I'm not sure what I can "experience" or "relate to" in any way. It may be that the word "personal" does not convey the meaning you're shooting for. I see a lot of beauty to life (as well as human suffering) and wonder about things like purpose and meaning, and if these kinds of things can be called an "experience," I'm still left with a blank slate when it comes to descriptions of God. My experience has been that without describing God, there is no way to describe life in relationship to that God.

 

Antlerman kind of summed it up here:

 

"God" is the meaning of life to us, the quality of universe that we respond to as personal because of its significance to us. It is how we understand life on an aesthetic level.

 

Here too "God" is without substance and equates to only a feeling of aesthetic wonder. I have a tremendous amount of aesthetic wonder, but I don't see this as relating to God. I rather see my aesthetic wonder as a character trait. Not everyone has these kinds of feelings, but research shows that certain parts of the brain can be stimulated and generate these kinds of feelings.

 

Anyway, I'm pressing the questions as I'm trying to redefine at the moment "spirituality," and specifically for myself, can an atheist be spiritual?

[Antlerman]

"God" is the meaning of life to us, the quality of universe that we respond to as personal because of its significance to us. It is how we understand life on an aesthetic level.

 

Here too "God" is without substance and equates to only a feeling of aesthetic wonder. I have a tremendous amount of aesthetic wonder, but I don't see this as relating to God. I rather see my aesthetic wonder as a character trait. Not everyone has these kinds of feelings, but research shows that certain parts of the brain can be stimulated and generate these kinds of feelings.

 

Anyway, I'm pressing the questions as I'm trying to redefine at the moment "spirituality," and specifically for myself, can an atheist be spiritual?

Hi Philo. I've been wanting to process a better response to you, plus to say welcome to the site. For the moment I want to say that you and I sound very much in the same boat. I can tell you read from the other topic I posted about Spritiuality's Greatest Enemy, when I recognized my words you quoted from it.

 

As part of helping me process some thoughts I'm chewing on right now, can you tell me if your background was in a fundamentalist approach to Christianity? I'm looking at the differences of how people coming out of that have specific things to overcome in understanding human spirituality.

[philo]

Hey Antlerman,

 

Thanks for the welcome. I was not not a "fundi" per se. I was an Adventist, got a BA in Religion, and was a paid and lay minister for many years. While not a "fundi" I was a Jew of the Jews as Paul might have said. Yeah, I took Christianity very seriously.

 

Your topic prompted me to start a new topic called, "Can an atheist be spiritual?" in General Theological issues.

 

When I came out of the closet and realized I was an atheist, my ideas about spirituality changed significantly. Like you I had to admit though, that I find that I am now a much more ethical and moral person than when I was a Christian. THe main reason for this is because I am no longer obligated to "copycat" some immoral qualities and tactics of God and his disciples as revealed in the NT.

[Antlerman]

Hey Antlerman,

 

Thanks for the welcome. I was not not a "fundi" per se. I was an Adventist, got a BA in Religion, and was a paid and lay minister for many years. While not a "fundi" I was a Jew of the Jews as Paul might have said. Yeah, I took Christianity very seriously.

 

Your topic prompted me to start a new topic called, "Can an atheist be spiritual?" in General Theological issues.

 

When I came out of the closet and realized I was an atheist, my ideas about spirituality changed significantly. Like you I had to admit though, that I find that I am now a much more ethical and moral person than when I was a Christian. THe main reason for this is because I am no longer obligated to "copycat" some immoral qualities and tactics of God and his disciples as revealed in the NT.

This is great! I was just reading up the last few days on Seventh Day Adventists, Ellen White, The Millerites, The Great Disappointment, etc. My son is dating a girl who's involved through her family with them. I would consider them to be fundamentalists, in that they seem to believe the infallibility of scripture, the literalness of the biblical characters and history, etc. They don't believe in hell as a place of torment though, and that they believe instead in annihilation.

 

I never had dealings with them before so it is intriguing to understand its origins during that time of American history when so many other cults were spawned, such as the Mormons, JW's etc. The social ground was fertile for these sorts of divine revelation, to take hold and spread. (BTW, my son is a fundi himself, but thinks Ellen White is a false prophet. Of course, my answer to that what he sees about her, I see the same thing in all the prophets of old. Just more time has passed since them and it's easier to see them less critically that Ellen White since we have such easy access to contemporary information about her ).

 

I'll check out your other thread in a bit. But to respond to what you said above about spirituality. For me, if you read some other threads I have been sorting all this out in, you will see that what it is for me is that I find myself responding to the world in a deeply aesthetic way. I write music, I love listening to music, I love nature, etc. I find in these things a deeply expressive voice or face to those impressions of the world I feel upon me. But my struggle was that despite rejecting the claims of "truth" from the evangelical/fundamentalist world, somehow I always felt my responding to the world in this "spiritual" manner was a bit hypocritical of me. I hadn't really realized that I was subconsciously associating those sorts of feelings as being part of their domain. It is NOT.

 

In fact, they are the antithesis of spiritual life, as they box in "God" or whatever language we many find to describe it. By limiting the experience of life to a specific theology, you limit "God", as they would call it. Understanding that even as I was in the church, I was unable in that environment to experience the sense of awe, wonder, and reverence I felt towards life - prior to joining up with them in my pursuit of deeper knowledge - that upon leaving them, it has all been a process of reclaiming Life for me.

 

I love out of choice and that is more meaningful than out of obligation. When I hear a fundi say to us on this site, or in my daily life, "I need to ask for your forgiveness because Christ commands me to confess my sins," I consider this vulgar and offensive. My response is to say "F* You!” It is not genuine human love happening here. We are viewed by this person as an object. We are an object in a category of outside the "saved", and they interact with us not out of what comes from within them, but out of a sick, selfish motive to impress someone else who they want to please. It has nothing to do with us personally. It's them using us as an object of their own personal twisted spiritual masturbation.

 

When someone loves out of truly free will, it is deeply meaningful to others, and significant and fulfilling to themselves. 'I don't have to do this, but because I respect and care for you, I choose to do this out of no other reason than for the sake of love itself'. Now that is life! That is spirituality. Rules deminsh and kill the spirit. Embracing love as Life iteself, dictates our actions with no need for rules. "Love works no ill" Fundamentalists are the Pharisees, the legalists of Matthew's day when he wrote his Gospel, "whitewashed sepulchers full of dead men's bones." Their rules and theologies supplant the rules of the heart. They will even dimiss all the genunie love in the world that is before their very eyes, if they cannot fit it into the box the have created for "God" or "Spirituality."

 

Ok I'll leave it at that for now. Expect me to ask you some questions about the Adventists.

[Open_Minded]

Philo... I'm really enjoying your contributions to this forum. It's good to have you on board, wecome.

 

Open_Minded . . . you're response here is vague to me ;

"That Which Is", "The Alpha and Omega" pervades all of existence and so it would only be natural that we would experience this, and relate to it, in intimate and personal ways.

 

It almost sounds a bit like pantheism. But I'm not sure what I can "experience" or "relate to" in any way. It may be that the word "personal" does not convey the meaning you're shooting for. I see a lot of beauty to life (as well as human suffering) and wonder about things like purpose and meaning, and if these kinds of things can be called an "experience," I'm still left with a blank slate when it comes to descriptions of God. My experience has been that without describing God, there is no way to describe life in relationship to that God.

 

Yes... I must admit the response is vague... it is intentional I suppose.. as I've come to learn how much language can actually get in the way of communication. Language can get in the way of experiencing as well. On the one hand we need language to communicate, on the other we can get caught up in that very language - the language about God can become what we worship. So please understand why I feel reservation when it comes to "descriptions of God".

 

Antlerman kind of summed it up here:

"God" is the meaning of life to us, the quality of universe that we respond to as personal because of its significance to us. It is how we understand life on an aesthetic level.

 

Here too "God" is without substance and equates to only a feeling of aesthetic wonder. I have a tremendous amount of aesthetic wonder, but I don't see this as relating to God. I rather see my aesthetic wonder as a character trait. Not everyone has these kinds of feelings, but research shows that certain parts of the brain can be stimulated and generate these kinds of feelings.

 

Anyway, I'm pressing the questions as I'm trying to redefine at the moment "spirituality," and specifically for myself, can an atheist be spiritual?

 

I think atheists can be VERY spiritual - study the Buddhist tradition and you'll have your answer. Many Buddhists, not all - but many, are Atheists. Buddhism is a very spiritual tradition. I'm not suggesting here that you pick up another belief system. But, I do believe there is much to be learned from studying the history of the world's belief systems. One will find commonalities that transcend theology, religious traditions, and language.

 

Having stated the above, I have come to believe that humanity is searching for the same ________. And I do not think that those of us who believe in a God are all that different from those who do not. We may see different aspects of the same Ultimate Reality, but in the end I do believe we are all searching for the same thing.

 

This discussion reminds me of the first discussion I ever got into here at Ex-C. You can link to it here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=108991

 

Some folks were asking me questions about my beliefs ... one of the questions follows.

 

Could your version of truth (wisdom, etc.) vary from mine and yet we both be "right?"

Let’s go with my version of wisdom, ok. Truth is too big for me, I won’t say I have a version of the truth. Yes, I do believe our understanding of wisdom can vary and yet we can both be “right”. My pastor (a pastor of a mainstream Lutheran church) often tells a Hindu story that addresses this issue. I’ve seen the story in writing once, and cannot find it to quote it here. So, I’m going from memory. If there is a Hindu out there, reading this, feel free to jump in and tell the story in full.

 

But in short, my understanding of the story is that 3-4 Hindu wise men find themselves in a dark cave with an elephant that they cannot see. They sense the presence of something else in the cave with them, it is alive and breathing but that is all they can tell. So they decide to explore this “something”. And using their hands they start to explore. One feels its trunk and proclaims this animal to be solid and wide. Another feels the tail and describes it as thin and spindly. Yet another wise man feels the huge rough sides of the elephant and claims that whatever it is they are exploring is very large and nondescript. The fourth wise man feels the ears and declares that this something they are feeling is quite floppy and flat. It is not until they light a lantern that they are able to see the whole picture. None of these wise men were wrong, they were experiencing different aspects of the same being, that is all.

 

I do believe there is a God. I don't believe this God is an extension of the human experience. I believe we are a manifestation or expression of God (of infinite LOVE/WISDOM/Energy within all, through all and beyond all). Having said that, I also believe that someone else can completely disagree with me and not be "wrong".

 

To me, this type of a discussion is not about having "TRUTH", or about being "right" or "wrong" - it is about learning. Because we are all searching after an Ultimate Reality that is not within our human ability to fully grasp. So... to me these types of discussions are about learning .. and it is often good to learn from those who are different from yourself.

 

I've said this in other threads, but I think it bears repeating here. Trying to "know" God is somewhat like a tree trying to "know" the forest. It is not physically possible for a tree to "know" the forest from beyond and outside the forest. The tree must "know" the forest by experiencing it.

 

I hope this doesn't muddy up the waters of discussion too much. If it does feel free to ask questions, I'm always game.

[philo]

Antlerman . . . I can fill you in on all the details about Adventism if you've got some questions. By and large, good people and not typically fundi. They're still Christians mind you, ie., attitude that their religion is the only true religion, but they are quite (honestly) friendly towards the gentiles. E. White was hit on the head with a stone at an early age. Might explain a few things.

 

Your taste in the artistic life seems to mirror my own. I've worked as a semi professional artist/drummer, these days I write mostly. Interesting comment here:

 

I always felt my responding to the world in this "spiritual" manner was a bit hypocritical of me.

 

I'm sensing a true atheist here . . .

 

Understanding that even as I was in the church, I was unable in that environment to experience the sense of awe, wonder, and reverence I felt towards life - prior to joining up with them in my pursuit of deeper knowledge - that upon leaving them, it has all been a process of reclaiming Life for me.

 

Ditto. I remarked on the new post that when I finally embraced atheism my "feelings" of sprituality increased 10 fold. This, despite there being no connection to god with the phrase. Would take a lifetime to explain if you know what I mean .. .

 

I love out of choice and that is more meaningful than out of obligation. When I hear a fundi say to us on this site, or in my daily life, "I need to ask for your forgiveness because Christ commands me to confess my sins," I consider this vulgar and offensive.

 

I'm compiling a list of random reasons as to why I'm an atheist on my site. I cannot write them fast enough. In my first reason I explain that only an unbeliever can offer true forgiveness. Christianity does not practice or encourage true forgiveness. . . one of its fundamental beliefs is that god will not forgive those who have sinned--he'll burn them. Likewise, a disciple cannot really offer forgiveness to anyone as long as they believe that their enemies will be punished in the end. In another reason I talk about becoming an atheist so that I can practice good, ethical behavior. Due to the rewards/punishment system in Christianity, any behavior offered by a believer is suspect. A person is only "truly" good when they expect no rewards or punishments for their actions. But more than expect, they know there will be no rewards.

 

But you know all this don't you?