Booth # 4: Religion and Spirituality

[JACkory]

OK, I realize(tho maybe you don't)that I'm formulating 'my god' for myself and not for you or Melon or anyone else. One that makes the most sense to me in an incomprehensible random world...---RocDoc

Yes, I do realize that you are basically "making it up as you go along", and it's for that reason that I hesitate to venture a lengthy response to much of what you have to say. We're talking about two very different things. You're on about what YOU think God SHOULD be like (attributes that will make up YOUR conception of what YOUR "God" will be like), while I am seeking the God who IS, regardless of what I think He should be. Your self-constructed "God" is the sum total of your perception of how YOU would have Him behave in any given circumstance. The God I seek is sovereign, and will do as HE pleases, PERIOD. Your "God" springs from your concerns, your conscience, your experience, while mine has revealed Himself in the incredible collection of books and letters known as the Bible.
Now don't you get ME wrong and think that I'm slagging off your method of shaping your own personal morality into the mold of a "God"... I'm just saying that I won't serve a God that you or anyone else has "made up".
Nay-sayers to the contrary, the God of the Bible was vindicated by the words of Jesus Christ, whose claim to divinity was justified and validated by His miracles, His wisdom and most importantly His resurrection from the dead. I didn't make any of that up, indeed, would never have thought to invent any of it. But I accept it by the faith that I have been given, and I also realize that many, many people have NOT that faith which would shine a light upon the truth and show it for what it is (absolute, and a sharp two-edged sword that tears asunder the lie of postmodernism).

So, yeah, no doubt our world-views are going to be less than synchronized. You say "The world you're dealing in seems to me to be one in which our 'evil nature', our cruelty, greed, avarice and pettiness, all become an inescapable given...", and in this you are correct (although I would substitute "sin nature" for "evil nature" and I'd place selfishness before cruelty, greed, avarice, pettiness et.al.). Yes, that is indeed the "world I'm dealing in", and if you've managed to convince yourself that it's otherwise then I guess we live on different planets. Although how you can maintain that my worldview (the Biblical one, mind you) leads to a situation where "forgiveness is no more than an 'Ooops, ha-ha...I did it againforgivemeplease'-instant afterthought" is totally beyond me. On the contrary, the closer I get to God, the more wretched I see that I am, and it becomes almost unbearable, the farthest thing from an "ooops ha-ha" that you could ever imagine.
You seem to have this notion that my belief in the doctrine of eternal security somehow makes me less sensitive to the realities of evil and their consequences, that I trivialize my own transgressions as being atoned for...nothing could be farther from the truth. I hate the sin that is in me. And just as much I hate my own weakness that allows it mastery over me when I know in my heart that I am no longer it's slave.

Doc, I hope you know that I have pondered the things you've written, that I haven't just scanned over them and thrown together a hasty reply (even if that's how it may seem...hopefully not). But I would really appreciate it if you would "level the playing field", as it were, by stating in a very concise and understandable way the problems you have with Christianity. I have a problem responding to the things you're writing because I'm not really sure where our understandings/beliefs diverge, and I would like to deal with the root issues...

you can't expect people who don't share the entire doctrinaire framework of your personal religious beliefs to simply accept that your abstract vision of God as loving and beneficent is necessarily consistent with your specific description of salvation and damnation---Mary

I don't expect anything of the sort. "Rocdoc made no "assumptive critiques" about God at all. He merely said that he thought a certain interpretation of God implied a lack of beneficence and a certain amount of cruelty. " Yes, that's what he said, and the "certain interpretation of God" to which he was referring just happened to be MY interpretation, and therefore I stated my opinion that I found his criticisms of "MY interpretation of God" ( as being cruel and lacking benificence) to be quite assumptive on his part, especially in light of the fact that his understanding of "MY interpretation of God" is severely limited to what he's ever read of my postings on message boards.
As for my "abstract vision of God as loving and beneficent (being) necessarily consistent with (my) specific description of salvation and damnation"... You'll just have to take my word for it that IT IS, seeing as how I don't have the time or talent to lay it all out for you in a manner that would be recognized as sufficient to lay all your doubts to rest.
As for God being invented by mankind...I'm sure mankind has invented a lot of gods. These days most of 'em can be found in mirrors. But it just strikes me as hard to fathom that man would invent a God whose nature is so unlike his own, whose omnipotence and omniscience are attributes that even the most intellectual among us will never wrap his/her mind around. If man had invented God then it would follow that man would have a firm understanding of his own invention, and yet God is beyond our understanding.
So we invented the God who created the earth and the heavens and all that is in them, right? And yet, if mankind had never been created, there would still be earth, heavens and all that is in them. At which point I suppose the plant kingdom would take credit for inventing God... I think I understand that you are saying that the "unknown factor" is what prompted mankind to "invent God", as some sort of buffer against the limits of our intellect. I am merely saying that the God I believe in, the God that is revealed in and validated by Jesus Christ, IS that "unknown factor" (among many other things), and whose to say that there was any difference at all in this case between what you describe as "man's invention" and what I would refer to as "God's inspiration/revelation"? The only difference, it seems to me, is who we choose to give credit to...
You say "Religion is surely part of mankind's answer to existential anxiety"...If religion is the answer, who asked the question? Why is there "existential anxiety" in the first place?
Could it be that there is a "God-shaped hole" in each of us that only the One who created us can fill?

[RocDoc]

Maybe it's a red herring but it's a point I've pretty much had thrown back in my face multiple times here...

'You're on about what YOU think God SHOULD be like (attributes that will make up YOUR conception of what YOUR "God" will be like), while I am seeking the God who IS, regardless of what I think He should be.'

'Your "God" springs from your concerns, your conscience, your experience, while mine has revealed Himself in the incredible collection of books and letters known as the Bible.'

'...the God of the Bible was vindicated by the words of Jesus Christ...'

THAT to me would be the 'rough guide/rulebook'-concept which I've used(very innocently I thought)more than once, while believing that to be true for a long while...well, THERE! To me that's an admission of that. OK, thanks.

~

"....the God who IS...."

....and I most certainly HAVE outlined this to you personally, BECAUSE I've beefed with my Ma about it like forever(*!)...as THE absolute failing of baptists, evangelists, charismatics, whatEVER fundamentalist branch of Christianity you wish to discuss.
THAT statement, 'the God who IS' delineates YOUR one concept of 'God' as 'He' who "revealed Himself in the incredible collection of books and letters known as the Bible."
A very SINGULAR, delineated and circumscribed entity who rules to the obvious EXclusion of any and ALL other concepts of 'god' ever in existence.

It explicitly delineates ALL other religions as 'failed'.

IF he's as omniscient and omnipotent as you put it in your paragraphs to Mary, why NOT that he would be able to 'handle' the variety of concepts, why NOT that he would be 'generous' enough that he could appear to be the central figure to multiple religions?

It's not like it would generate too much paperwork for Him in His 'office in the sky'...

There's one concept which 'bothers' me...as requested. Concise? I dunno...

[samplestiltskin]

I gotta agree with rnr here. Who is anyone to say what God is? It's all perception. Nobody can say they know their definition of what God "IS" is the correct definition. How presumptuous. You can say "I am using this definition of 'God', the 'God' of the Bible..." as long as you understand that it is only your definition. (Which could obviously never be completely accurate anyway!)

[chrisfan]

I disagree Samples. ANY defition of God simply does not work. Now I do agree that none of us can know FOR CERTAIN just who and what God is ... I don't believe t hat He intends for us to know FOR SURE on earth. But I believe that He does give us clues, and does lead us in the right direction. To say "This is what I've decided works for me, so this is my definition of God" does not hold as much weight for me as "based on the reading I've done from the bible, as well as the guidance I've sought out from other believers, these are the conclusions I've drawn".

[samplestiltskin]

Whatever makes you feel better. Just keep in mind there are many, many definitions of God in the world and that one should specify which definition they are using without discrediting every other definition that exists.

[chrisfan]

But don't you see that what you are prescribing is in direct conflict with itself?

I happen to be a Christian who believes there is ONE God, and different religions just call Him by a different name ... kind of like I know my grandmother as "Grandma", but others know her as "auntie", "mother", "Mrs G", etc ...

However, there are those believers who believe that there is ONE God, and the "god" others believe in is a false diety. In those cases, to "define" God (which they believe has a single definition therefore no need for definition) would be discrediting their OWN beliefs.

[samplestiltskin]

You say "Religion is surely part of mankind's answer to existential anxiety"...If religion is the answer, who asked the question? Why is there "existential anxiety" in the first place? Could it be that there is a "God-shaped hole" in each of us that only the One who created us can fill?

Some people are perfectly comfortable with atheism. JLLM, I believe, would be one example. It makes perfect sense to them and they feel no God-shaped hole. I myself am probably still best described as agnostic -- and it's going to stay that way, I imagine. I like the idea of leaving things open, and not labelling concepts (because any label is going to be inadequate and wrong, stemming from the insufficient trappings of a human mind.) The Bible was written by humans. MAYBE what they wrote about has a grain of truth. All religions do, I'm guessing.

I don't feel a hole where God or Anything should be. But I think most humans do need to feel validated, loved, and like they have a purpose, a loving creator, someone non-transient who gives a shit, and a solid idea of How Things Really Are (i.e. Heaven and Hell, what God wants, why there is pain and suffering in the world), and hope for the future/eternity. People like to feel like they've got it figured out. This is MY problem with Christianity and most world religions, put in precise and understandable terms (hopefully.) It's a cop-out.

I know your opinion of my opinion, I'm pretty sure. You think I'm self-centered because I say "Live for happiness, live for here and now, live for creating happiness wherever you can" instead of worshipping a higher power and sacrificing my thought pattern to it. There's really nothing either of us can say to change each other's mind. We are both convinced that we are right. And maybe that's what really fills our "God-shaped holes."

[samplestiltskin]

However, there are those believers who believe that there is ONE God, and the "god" others believe in is a false diety. In those cases, to "define" God (which they believe has a single definition therefore no need for definition) would be discrediting their OWN beliefs.

Well. I suppose what I'm saying is that these people need to realize they're being silly and come off it.

[chrisfan]

samples said:

However, there are those believers who believe that there is ONE God, and the "god" others believe in is a false diety. In those cases, to "define" God (which they believe has a single definition therefore no need for definition) would be discrediting their OWN beliefs.

Well. I suppose what I'm saying is that these people need to realize they're being silly and come off it.

I realize there's a smiley there but ... what you're basically saying is "I can discredit their beliefs, just as long as they don't discredit mine"?

[samplestiltskin]

When their beliefs are exclusionary (if that's a word) and unnecessarily self-righteous, yes. I can accept they believe what they believe -- I cannot accept that they put everyone else into Hell's flaming chambers in their mind's eye.

Yes I suppose I'm a hypocrite for saying "this is wrong" when it's only my opinion. Everybody feels strongly about their own beliefs.

[Mary]

To say "This is what I've decided works for me, so this is my definition of God" does not hold as much weight for me as "based on the reading I've done from the bible, as well as the guidance I've sought out from other believers, these are the conclusions I've drawn".

Out of curiosity, does someone who says "This is the God I believe on based on the reading I've done from the Torah" or "this is the God I believe in based on the reading I've done from the Koran" or "this is the God I believe in based on the reading I've done from Bhagavad-Gita" hold as much weight with you?

JAC - just to clarify, of course I believe 100% that you believe God is loving and beneficent. The God you describe, one who damns people to eternal hellfire, does not actually sound loving and beneficent to me. I'm not denying that you have reconciled these beliefs in your own conscience, but I am claiming that I think they are logically inconsistent and that your reconciliation is unconvincing. I could very well be entirely wrong, and if so... I'm in trouble! But the mere fact that you believe A and B are logically consistent doesn't make it true.

Regarding "why" we have existential anxiety to begin with (crap, I don't remember whether it was chrisfan or jac who askedthis now), this seems to me to be doing the exact same thing to justify the existence of God that you are accusing rocdoc of doing to justify his personal conception of God. The fact that we feel a constant lack, a constant mortal terror, a constant fear of the unknown, does not mean God must exist to redeem us. The fact that we yearn for transcendence does not mean that transcendence actually exists, anymore than the fact that rocdoc yearns for a loving God according to his definition means that God actually fits that definition. It might be that we suffer from existential anxiety for the simple reason that we are unlucky enough to know that we're going to die. Simple blind luck. Not every anxiety has a cure.

But keep in mind I'm not saying mankind did invent God - God may exist - I'm only saying that we would probably invent God even if he doesn't exist. As for why we would invent an unfathomable God, there's nothing remotely surprising about that to me. Philosophers of aesthetics deal with unfathomable concepts all the time - beauty and sublimity, for example. Just because humans invent a particular concept, it does not follow that that concept will be easily graspable.

M

[JACkory]

THAT to me would be the 'rough guide/rulebook'-concept which I've used(very innocently I thought)more than once, while believing that to be true for a long while...well, THERE! To me that's an admission of that.

You can't blame me for being a tad disgruntled at your depiction of the Bible as a "rough guide/rulebook" in your previous post, and who knows but that I didn't catch your point as a result of the offense I took. Pretty much what I got out of the comments you had made regarding the "material" (as you called it) was that you didn't put much stock in it, if any at all.
And it is obvious that you don't, but that's beside the point.

THAT statement, 'the God who IS' delineates YOUR one concept of 'God' as 'He' who "revealed Himself in the incredible collection of books and letters known as the Bible."

Explain this to me...if the God that I serve is the One revealed in the Bible, how can He be thought of as" MY ONE CONCEPT OF GOD"? ? ?
It's more like this: I have accepted that the GOD OF THE BIBLE is the "God who IS", and this acceptance comes from much contemplation, prayer and Bible study. It's foundation is upon Christ's confirmation that the Hebrew God, YHWH, is the One true God. If my Lord had sang the praises of Vishnu, then to Vishnu I would owe my allegiance. If He had said that He came from Allah and was His prophet, I would have to throw my hat in with the Muslims of the world. If He had boldly stated that He represented ALL "Gods" and condoned each and every one of the thousands of man-made "deities" as "potential paths to Paradise", then I would jump on this Universalist bandwagon that you seem to have hitched a ride on and let some blood worshipping advocate of human sacrifice tattoo the words "Let Tolerance REIGN" across my forehead.
But Jesus Christ, the RISEN Lord, who Himself taught in the synagogues from the Hebrew Scriptures, assures us of the authentic reliability of those same Scriptures and of the reality of the one God revealed therein...yes, TO THE EXCLUSION of every other religion and every other "concept of God ever in existance"...and like I said before (and please note the section of my comment that you have truncated), "the God of the Bible was vindicated by the words of Jesus Christ, whose claim to divinity was justified and validated by His miracles, His wisdom and most importantly His resurrection from the dead."
It explicitly delineates ALL other religions as 'failed'.
...Alas, IT DOES. But maybe credit will be given for good intentions? I dunno...
I know that sounds terribly intolerant.
And if you knew me well, you'd know that I am NOT an intolerant sort at all, and to be honest, I can't say that it sits all that well with me to think of anyone who is sincere in what they believe effectively "backing the losing horse", to use a crude phrase. And I don't understand it and I never claimed to understand it.
But then again, maybe it's not such a bad thing to think of religions that have failed...I'd even lump Christianity (it's form, not it's essence) into a category labelled "failure", because so much of it has drifted away from the spirit of love and forgiveness that were at the heart of what Jesus taught.
why NOT that he would be able to 'handle' the variety of concepts...Oh, there's not a concept formed by the human mind that God cannot "handle", individually or in bulk. why NOT that he would be 'generous' enough that he could appear to be the central figure to multiple religions?...and I don't know that I wouldn't champion the position that indeed He DOES so appear to be that Central Figure. But Christ Himself said "SALVATION IS FROM THE JEWS" (John 4:22), and told the Samaritan woman to whom He was speaking that her people "worship what (they) do not know".
And so the failure of any religion is when it's adherants worship "what they do not know". Think about this and consider it carefully...how does it apply to the major world religions (including Christianity)...and then reflect upon the rest of Christ's message in that passage: " Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." (John 4:23-24)

I know this...I want to be one of "the true worshippers". That is my goal.
It's not for me to sit back in some ultra-objective state-of-mind and pass judgement upon anyone for believing as they choose to believe (or choosing not to believe). And it's most certainly not up to me to administer some sort of "spiritual breathalyzer" to determine the genuineness of anyone's convictions. If I've come across in my last batch of posts as being the sort who claims to have a cut-and-dried set of rules that will guarantee one's salvation, I have not done so intentionally. All I know is that Jesus Christ is the One I'm trusting...He's the One I'm going to expect to find on the other side.
Yeah, I believe He's the One we're all going to find on the other side. The rest is up to Him...

So the concept that bothers you is the Bible's insistance that there is but one God?
How many Gods would you prefer?

************************************************************

And I see that a whole 'nother convo has erupted in the time it has taken me to type this response to RocDoc in my trusty notepad.
I've already spent too much time on the computer today, but I would like to comment on something Chrisfan wrote:
I happen to be a Christian who believes there is ONE God, and different religions just call Him by a different name ... kind of like I know my grandmother as "Grandma", but others know her as "auntie", "mother", "Mrs G", etc ...

However, there are those believers who believe that there is ONE God, and the "god" others believe in is a false diety. In those cases, to "define" God (which they believe has a single definition therefore no need for definition) would be discrediting their OWN beliefs.

I support your right to believe as you wish, but I certainly do not think that the "gods" worshipped by other religions are one and the same as God, just going by different names. Cuz it's not just the names that are different, it's the attributes and nature of these "gods" which are at odds with the God who is revealed by and in Jesus Christ.
As for "defining God"...well, of course He is not to be defined, but the Scriptures have much to say about His nature and attributes, and so I am in no way discrediting my own beliefs when I compare and contrast the respective natures/attributes of, say, Allah and YHWH. On the contrary, I only strengthen my beliefs when I see the stark differences between the two.

I hope to eventually respond to samples' comments as well, but that will have to be for another day.

[PC]

I believe that God is loving and merciful, and it isn't so much that God sends people to hell, people send themselves to Hell, if you know what I mean.

That's all I'm gonna say right now, I don't want to get into a huge debate with anyone.

[JACkory]

The God you describe, one who damns people to eternal hellfire, does not actually sound loving and beneficent to me.

Ahhh, but justice demands punishment for transgression, else there is no detterent to those who would stop at nothing to have their own way.

And PunkChick is right. People send themselves to hell. God judges according to the light we've received, but the sad fact is that people just love darkness. If the sign says "Bridge Out" and I ignore it, I have only myself to blame for falling into the river...

[Rit]

thought i'd add a slightly different dimension to this debate.

i read Harold Bloom recently, and since he always has a lot to say on religion, albeit in his own unique way, i thought i'd quote something of his here: he writes of one of the greatest literary characters ever constructed (hypothetically by Bathsheba, a Queen of the Hittite peoples)

This character is no less than the "God of Abraham", also known as Yahweh. Bathsheba’s Yahweh, as evidenced time and time again all throughout the Old Testament ‘is human – all too human: he eats and drinks, frequently loses his temper, delights in his own mischief, is jealous and vindictive, proclaims his justness while constantly playing favourites, and develops a considerable case of neurotic anxiety when he allows himself to transfer his blessing from an elite to the entire Israelite host. By the time he leads that crazed and suffering rabblement through the Sinai wilderness, he has become so insane and dangerous, to himself and others, that Bathsheba deserves to be called the most blasphemous of all authors ever.’

i think the point is superbly pertinent. If you look at Old Testament God as a whole, he looks rather rascible, though hardly lovable. At one point, God reveals scandalously that he can't stand the smell of people, and that he considered using an intermediary to deal with them. The point is that it's a marvelously complex character that is presented in the pages, not immaculate by anymeans, but shot through with invention. Fitting, i suppose, since God has turned out to be one our greatest abiding characters.