The Problem with God

Bill

The God who separates is the God of humanity for the most part, I totally agree.  Even, in some cases, the hallmark theological doctrines take on a sense of pride and exclusivity among its followers.  This branch of the tree leads to Sectarianism as it further subdivides from the general to the more specific -- for instance, not only must one be a monotheist, a Trinitarian, but we delve deeper into areas like one must adhere to plenary verbal inspiration of the Scriptures...

As my own understanding of these thematic vectors developed, I began to seek a meaningful path -- that is, one that sought the betterment of man wherever it could be found.  That search involved God and even doctrinal development, so readers can understand that what is meant by "coming to grips with the Trinity Doctrine" did not necessarily mean it all gets negated.  Naturally some might take it that way, since part of the "God system" tends to disallow thinking in new ways (even though that is precisely how it came to be in the first place).

Father, Son, Holy Spirit -- now there's a place to begin a search for meaning.

reido 

bill

Please describe further about this developmental relationship.  I will be on vacation for a week but hopefully can get on somewhere. 

reido

Reido,

I'll prepare a better explanation and post it later. But for now, I'll give a quick reason for my seemingly wild claims.

If we are to be Monotheistic, we can say nothing definitive about God. God is the ineffable and non-rational—since our reason is only useful for relations with objects. We can only “know” God through relationship, and never through reason. I have a friend who says that God IS relationship. Which is similar to St. John's summary: “God is Love.” But all such characterizations limit what was before limitless. As soon as we say what something is like, or what it is not like—we have limited it.

But we can observe patterns of power as it is expressed in the cosmos. Prehistoric humans called these observations the “works of God.” But in our need to relate, we personify them. Some of us name our automobiles, and almost all of us name our pets. And what is the keeping of a pet, anyway, but the creation of relationship. So we name the manifestations or emanations that come from an unknowable. At least it is unknowable to reason. And with each name comes a personality, and with every personality comes a person.

Although poets, gurus and theologians layout complex myths to explain emanations of God, my understanding is that these “personalities” are just that. We relate to God as: Creator and Light Giver; Nurturer and Maintainer; Destroyer; and even Incarnate—among others. To call these gods (or even saints), is to start down the road to Polytheism. But what if there is no god?

Atheism can only exist while there is Theism. It is the opposer. But if there were truly no god, then both would melt away. The Ineffable remains, nonetheless. With, or without our rationalizations, the Ground of Being continues to Be. Our non-rational relationship with the Other persists, but cannot be explained rationally. Without rational explanations, both Atheism and Theism lose their footing. But Polytheism would abound.

And I believe that Polytheism thrives today under the cloak of Monotheism. For as soon as I imagine a Personal God, I have created 6 billion gods. More accurately, there are at least hundreds of gods within Christianity, alone. Satan takes on the role of Destroyer, Jesus becomes Trickster. Mary becomes Earth Mother. There is God the strict disciplinarian, and God the gift giver, and God the comforter, etc. And most important for institutionalism: God the authorizer. All of these are owned by humans. They live in temples and churches, and even books. This is not Monotheism.

So, I hope to have something better soon. My clumsy introduction was intended to stir up conversation with lurkers, but so far it is only the three of us. I'm wondering whether we should continue this, or just email each other.

bill

Dear Mr Bill,

What you  wrote  is true. People are fundementally differng with each other based on their belief in God. The  concept of God itself  is being debated. The unknown force that keeps the  entire universe going on precisely   has not been explained and is beyond  any ones capability  Though we have unfolded many mysteries of nature this part  however is beyond human  capability.  It is not our universe, the  nest  neighboring solar systems and nebulas  .. so many things. No one can  clearly explain who made i , why made it,  when were made. How long it took, etc.  The primitive men were  scared of nature and  they  respected  nature and the powers as Gods that had  superior powers to men. Concept of God   most probably  arrived from there. Scriptures were genrated later on  as civilizations developed and scripts came into existance. In fact the concept of God was different at  different lands and  they had own scriptures. As travel became  slightly easy  intermingling took place and  scriptures too were influenced acordingly.  But   people vehemently differed with eaxch other over Gods and cut each others thrats too.  Some  can not  accept any other kind of God except theirs and are prepared to go to any extent while some accept every god as only one withy different identifications.  But sadly no one has seen God and returned to give proof.  To day we have  cameras, videos, many other gadgets to  record the images and record the voices of every thing. Sadly these were not availble to our ancestors. Otherwise things  would have been different.  Even to day we have many swamis, Gurus , Babas,  and priests who claim that they have seen Hod and attained realisation.  But they can not describe God. Hindus however  can depict  all types of Gods like Rama, Shiva, Brahma, Ganesh, hanuman and  godesses such as Durga, Laxmi ets. Others of course can not accept these.  The controversy develops and all are at others throats.  Thus  best way is to accept everything  without question because we can not prove  or disapprove.  Peaceful existance is the best way than fighting for  an useless result that can never be achieved.   However in all this melee Advaitha scores over everything that is more close to science. yours was a good  point. We have been saying these thins long over the site.Thanks

Dr K Prabhakar Rao 

Dr K Prabhakar Rao wrote: Peaceful existance is the best way than fighting for an useless result that can never be achieved. However in all this melee Advaitha scores over everything that is more close to science. yours was a good point. We have been saying these thins long over the site. Thanks

Yes Professor, I agree that the mystic approach (such as Advaitha) is the only way to approach understanding of what is impossible to understand with our reason. Reason is very useful, of course. But centered in ego, it can never relate because it is always breaking things into parts.

We can only relate to another being with our whole being. Which requires relating to another whole. Pieces and emanations, and other multitudes of gods is never the whole. I can't even relate to my spouse if I am scrutinizing her attributes. As soon as I begin to analyze, I cease to relate and begin to observe. Judgmentalism, so prevalent in religion and politics, is caustic to relationship.

Personally, I find no more fault in Hinduism's Polytheism than Christianity's denominationalism. My complaint is with institutionalized ignorance. I'm convinced that only the individual can meet God. Whether initially guided by the guru, priest, or imam, temple, congregation, or ummah, each of us must eventually strike out on our own journey. Otherwise we remain ignorant, stubborn sheep, worshiping the grass we eat, the flock to which we belong, and the shepherd who guides us to pasture.

Thanks for your comments,

bill

Bill and Rao

Hoping not to distract you from your current course of conversation and thought.  I am reading a book by Neal Donald Walsh, 2004, that deals thoroughly with the Problem of God via redefining God as Life.  His is a participatory lifeview that is Inclusive.  He follows the same style as his Conversations With God series. 

Suffice it to say that he is a Heretic Supreme.  I mean that in the most complementary and respectful sense as he turns the whole God picture inside out.  Hopefully we can discuss more of this later.  So far I have not found anything particularly original, but what I do find is another way of saying many of the things we have come upon in our own journeys.

reido

Reido,

Some reviews from Walsch's books peaked my interest. Next chance I get, I'll look up the author's books in the bookstore or library.

Currently I'm digging into Kabbalah and the philosophical side of alchemy. I'm learning that it's not so much what I read, but what happens in me when I read something.

Looking forward to hearing more.

bill

He is not necessarily against religion, but assesses the situation as a limited view of the whole picture.  Kabbalists used the idea of emanations to describe the many facets of God; still they were careful to say that the tree of Life has a 360 degree and an upside down view.  Your mention of emanations caught my attention because of the symbolic approach of the Kabbalists and Gnostics.

If there were one thing that excites me about his thinking it would be that man is regarded as participating as much as God in the process of Life.  We participate whether we think we do or not --  God continually participates because that is the nature of the Process.  Even if we choose to reject, that is participation.  If we choose to destroy rather than create, that is participation.  So it is a universalist view in this regard.

reido

Reido wrote: Kabbalists used the idea of emanations to describe the many facets of God; still they were careful to say that the tree of Life has a 360 degree and an upside down view. Your mention of emanations caught my attention because of the symbolic approach of the Kabbalists and Gnostics.

Reido,

Thanks for the clarification.

When I wrote “emanations” originally, I was trying to use a term I learned from gnostic texts (mostly texts about gnosis and those who sought it) to explain what I think is necessary to attempt to describe the indescribable. I can't really describe the love that has grown between me and my wife, but I can describe characteristics of it. So I assume that seers have attempted to describe what they see of God, but what is only an attribute. How many goddesses of Wisdom are there?

So, perhaps foolishly, I'm thinking that our spiritual senses work similarly to our material ones. We sense a result; trace it to its source; and attempt to name the process that brought the result into being.

We sense in God characteristics like nurture and design, love/mercy, and retribution/ justice. Some attribute these to chance, others to a personal god. But somewhere in between—I hope—is a cosmology that I can understand.

Anyway, I appreciate your clarification, and hope that I didn't confuse to much an already complicated subject.

As you probably know better than I, discussion of the Tree of Life requires a very different concept of God than many of us are accustomed to. Something like this particular view (and I'm not claiming to have it all figured out) is what I might ultimately suggest as a solution to the title of this thread.

bill

Bill

You wrote...

I'm thinking that our spiritual senses work similarly to our material ones. We sense a result; trace it to its source; and attempt to name the process that brought the result into being.

This is a very well put description of the Spiritual method that we are involved in.  Naturally, anything we describe is not going to be the actual thing itself -- it will fall short in many ways because we only see the part we see at a given point.  The whole can be divided and subdivided to the atomic particles that make it up -- and at the same time, the whole can itself be a subpart of the universe that is participating in the process of the entirety. 

Walsch points out that our minds are part of this process, which can make the learning process difficult in that being aware of oneself can bring with it the idea that one is separated from the whole.  This, he says, is the downfall of man -- that he does not realize that the entire universe is interactive and living, continually in flux, and that man's awareness of self often carries with it the destruction of life.  The cause of man's basic confusion is that he has been taught that God is separated from life.

reido

Reido wrote: Walsch points out that our minds are part of this process, which can make the learning process difficult in that being aware of oneself can bring with it the idea that one is separated from the whole. This, he says, is the downfall of man -- that he does not realize that the entire universe is interactive and living, continually in flux, and that man's awareness of self often carries with it the destruction of life. The cause of man's basic confusion is that he has been taught that God is separated from life.

Reido,

This makes good sense to me, nowadays. But I had to give up Augustine's Original Sin construct first. Nevertheless, Augustine was right. Separation from God—whether real or imagined—leads to a loss of holiness, or wholeness. Removing the separation returns wholeness. But I'm still at a loss as to the solution.

What does Walsch offer as the path back to wholeness?

bill

Bill

I haven't finished the book yet, but the 4th chapt is called "Saving the World" and begins to deal with your quest.  He is such a great heretic, most of his answers are the opposite of religious tradition.  Even the title to the chapter is a misnomer because he does not have a prescription for the world, only for each being individually.  And "Save" does not mean what the Evangelicals would term it, rather he calls it "Pre-serve" -- a beginning to realize the mind to connect with all Life by awareness.

You will soon understand that enlightenment is experienced by not seeking to experience it.  One does not become enlightened because one wishes to. One becomes enlightened because one is. That is, you are already enlightened and simply now become aware of it....now a great secret.  You cannot become aware of anything within yourself without seeing it outside of yourself, and you cannot become aware of anything outside of yourself without seeing it inside of yourself.  p53

How's that for an answer? I kinda grinned when I read it.  An interesting departure from orthodoxy is that he offers that God does not care whether we are aware or not -- not in the Augustinian sense.  Life will go on with or without us.  So the ones we are "saving" is truly ourselves and all of life inclusively.

reido

Reido,

This makes sense, also. Not that I could have written it, but that I'm increasingly “free for it”—to use your phrase. Perhaps Messiah returns every time someone becomes a Christ through years of carrying one's cross. But this Cross is not self-sacrifice to the holy church or for the king. Instead, it is living one's life with increasing awareness. An awareness of the connectedness of all Life. Which reminds me of the quote: “every time you do this for one of these, you do it for me.” Most insist the “me” is a deity. Perhaps. But if we stare at this long enough, it becomes apparent that doing for others is doing for me. It's recursive, reciprocal, and united.

bill

Bill

Your thoughts about the Messianic mission are different wording but the same message.  If we look at the symbology you came up with for this website, we see circles of different colors meeting and connected -- not necessarily perfectly as in overlapping the same, but connecting.  Walsch has noted the great teachers of the world as having this in common. 

Where he believes "they" failed (and it is not "they") was that each spoke in a context of time that man had grown in process towards.  Slavery, inequality among humanity continued as signs of the times.  His point is to take the basic message of people he regards as Sons of God (because he regards us all as that) and move into our time in process  rather than attempt to reproduce a first century mythology as a rulebook. 

It's recursive, reciprocal, and united.

Yes, isn't life that way?

reido

Dear Mr Reido and Bill 

The problem with God is that he loves

It is not his concern whether you love him or not

The saga of love would be go on inspite of ups and down

Although many of us  are  a mentally twisted lot

One would reach him through love and compassion

And by showing  and living a life of love to all

The great saints all over lived thus

While many ignorant make claims foolishly tall

Dr K Prabhakar Rao