I've got some questions about the Liberal Christian conception of God.

[More Than A Feeling]

For starters, what is it? Is God still the creator, or if not, what is the relationship, if any between God and people? Do you see the "hand of God" in everyday life? Is God everywhere, or in a specific place? What about Jesus? Was Jesus God, and if so, in what way?

That should do for now, don't you think?

[jody]

1. Some version of the Apostles' Creed is the best starting point

The Roman Catholic Church, 1.1 billion members, version below

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

[kestrel91316]

2. Religion is ultimately a very personal matter. Liberals, being

less dogmatic as a whole than conservatives, will likely not be able to give you a single response to this. Nor should they be expected to.

Everybody has their own take on the God thing.

[papau]

4. Very True :-)

:-)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. I don't think that the meaningful part of religion is a personal matter.

The core of any religion or religious position is a set of factual claims about the universe and How Things Are.

Often cultures and structures grow up around such sets of claims, and then you get people who are to some extent part of the culture and structure, but don't wholly subscribe to all the claims.

Being a part of that religion is often a key part of such people's identities, and so they're naturally sometimes reluctant to talk (or think)
about the factual claims at its core.

But those claims are there, and like any factual claims they're not personal matters at all. Either a God or Gods exist, or they don't; if they do exist then some statements about them are true and others aren't.

"I don't know which is true" is a perfectly good (and indeed the best) answer to many questions. "This is true for me and that is true for you" never is. Truth is not personal.

[kestrel91316]

7. If your dogma don't get out of my way I'm liable to give 'im a swift kick.

My spiritual views are in my head, and not subject to anybody else's rules about religion.

[Imperialism Inc.]

11. Then why not just answer the question and tell us

what your particular beliefs are. I too am curious since liberals give much more interesting answers than fundies. So fill us in, so that we can know one particular alternative to the fundies.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. Your views may be in your head, but the truth is out there.

What is interesting about your views, whatever they may be, (at least to me) is not that you personally hold them, but whether or not they are objectively true.

You're absolutely welcome to adopt whatsoever views you choose in a purely subjective manner, but wouldn't it be better to try and figure out what things are true, and believe only those?

"I am a spaghetti-monsteran" is a purely personal statement - it's in your head, it's irrefutable, and it's not subject to any rules or a matter for anyone except you, except in the most tyrannical theologies. However, it's not interesting or useful in any way.

"I think that spaghetti-monsteranism is correct, for these reasons" is an objective claim about the world around us, and it's perfectly reasonable for other people to say "no, you're wrong, for these reasons". Claims like this are far more worthwhile, and it's something like this that the OP, and to a lesser extent I, are trying to tempt you into.

[kwassa]

13. What is interesting and useful to you may be neither interesting or useful to me

It is not a requirement for me to be interesting to you. I have no need to prove my beliefs as objectively true to others, as the value they hold is there for me whether anyone else believes them or not. I think many theists look at their beliefs this way.

There are things whose objective truth can neither be known or unknown. Not being able to know them does not correlate that they are untrue, simply that we don't know them. They still can have value, despite our inabilty to find whether they are objectively true or not, because in some cases we can't ever know that.

[kestrel91316]

14. Well, it's like this:

There is the scientist and medical professional in me who pursues and respects objective truth in daily life.

And then there's my inner life, that of my eclectic belief system. I'm sort of a neopagan ecofeminist with Anababtist leanings is how I like to put it. I don't attend church but rarely, and don't engage in any actual worship or rituals on my own. It's more just personal philosophy.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Do as you will, and harm none.
Blessed are the peacemakers.
If you're going to get baptised into a church it doesn't make any sense to do it until you are of an age to think out what you are doing (infant baptism because of "original sin is bizarre to me" - "original sin" is bizarre altogether).
Don't know for sure Who Jesus was, but he had some damned good ideas. We're ALL children of God, BTW. Not just him.
Etc.

My views are also constantly changing. I don't need to get deeply into "truth" WRT my spiritual views - partly because they're strictly personal and not subject to scrutiny or debate by others.

[rasputin1952]

18. Now this was an excellent answer to the query above...

Being in the Medical Field brings w/it a situation where science and religion seem to meld. Perhaps it is because of the potential of emotional responses that are seen and the knowledge that, (at least at this point), people are not capable of explaining everything.

There are very few religions that express harm to others as a tenet of their existence or entrance into. Almost all religions, even those that are not considered conventional, place good to others as a firm base. Those that expressed destruction were bound to eventually destroy themselves.

Jesus had some excellent ideas, and expressed them well, so did Confucius, the Buddha, Plato, Aristotle and a host of others. Many of these were shown to be in error through the Scientific Process, but that is precisely why people think, to find answers.

Except for an epiphany like moment, which is indeed personal, most of what we believe is what we were taught by someone else, and that person could indeed have been wrong in what they were speaking of.

So...if one helps those in their little area of life, they have done something good, and the good will most likely be passed on somewhere down the line. It does no one any harm to do another a good turn and hope that that will be passed on, it can do great harm if we ignore those that are worse off than we are.

Unless someone does me harm, I treat all as equals; but even the one who does me harm may learn at sometime in the future to do good to others, who is to tell?

So we seek out answers, and w/o the epiphanic moment that comes rarely, if at all, we plod on looking for the truth, the answers to what we question. I learned long ago that 2+2=4, but so does 3+1, same answer, two different ways to get to the answer. It pays to keep an open mind, and it appears to me yours is doing just fine and your writing/expression is eloquent....:)

[Dorian Gray]

9. That's honestly a good answer

and though I know we both may disagree on what we believe to be true (and I can honestly say I don't know without a doubt the factual truth to my religious beliefs or claims), in the end, Truth is unwavering. It is what it is. What we perceive of it truly doesn't matter.

[kiahzero]

15. You think truth is not personal.

"This is true for me and that is true for you" never is.

That may be true for you, but it's not true for me.

:evilgrin:

[davhill]

16. It starts from an internal experience

Since spiritual experiences are internal and completely outside of the senses with which we usually perceive the world, it is difficult to empirically measure and replicate them. Some people just don't bother, but others still attempt to replicate them. They rely upon the circumstances with which they had the experience. Some people have found that certain rituals and beliefs reinforce the memory to keep the memory of the spiritual experience from fading. They pass these processes on to other people in the hope that they may also find them useful. That is all religion is.

[struggle4progress]

19. My religious beliefs don't provide "factual claims" about "how things are" --

they concern my hopes about how things might be

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. Why do you use the word "beliefs" for them, then?

I can understand a religious position being based on what you hope might be true, rather than how you think things are, but I don't think the word "belief" is appropriate for a hope.

[cosmik debris]

23. Factual claims about the universe???

Please tell me what these claims are. And just to head off a difference of opinion, please tell me your understanding of the word "factual".

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. Obviously, that depends on the religion (or religious position).

The claims at the core of Christianity are roughly approximated by the Nicene creed - an omnibenevolent supreme being exists, Jesus was his son and died and rose from the dead, etc. The claims Islam makes about the universe include the fact that there is no god but Allah and that his last and greatest prophet was Mohammed. The claims I, an atheist, make about the universe are that nothing supernatural exists, including gods (that's not a religion, but it is a religious position). And so forth.

I'm not a lexicographer, but when I say "a factual claim", what I mean is approximately "an objective statement about the way things are and the universe around us, which is either true or false" (although it need not be provable or falsifiably by humans - "a god exists" is a factual claim, even though such a god might be undetectable by us).

[cosmik debris]

25. That sorta eliminates any room for a debate

When a "factual claim" can be either true or false, much like the claims about holy texts that are sometimes metaphorical and sometimes literal.

Or perhaps I am misunderstanding the language. I see a difference between a fact that is claimed and a claim that something is factual. I read the former interpretation in your statement while I now suspect that you meant the latter.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. I use "a factual claim" to mean "a claim that something is a fact".

"Two plus two is five" is a factual claim, in the sense I've been using it - it's an incorrect factual claim, but it's a claim about what the facts are.

In this sense, you can't have debate (or, indeed, knowledge or meaningful thought) *without* factual claims.

[cosmik debris]

29. That was my misunderstanding.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Dorian Gray]

8. Yes, this is very true

Everyone is different, and there is no liberal lockstep.

I do believe in the Creed listed above by Jody. As for matters of social issues, I do differ from the church on many. But, I am probably a more conservative (bad word) Catholic than many here in my full belief in the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds.

[JerseygirlCT]

20. Very well said! nt

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. I'll try and speak for my liberal Christian friends

first of all, my mother, who taught me that following the teachings of Jesus (that is doing good works) was more important than prescribing to some dogma about accepting Jesus as your personal savior. Oh, and she taught me from an early age that all paths lead to God.

second of all, my landlord, who attends the Dances of Universal Peace and has no trouble saying "Allah" "Sri Ram" and "Ahura Mazda" when talking about God--to her, it is all about what is within; God is the creative process and we are co-creators, taking steps towards conscious co-creation. The Christ Spirit within us gives us focus and a handle on how to live, based not on dogma, but the inner voice.

[Dorian Gray]

10. Ayesha

Interesting. I've never heard of Dances of Universal Peace. Is it similar to Bahai?

Also, what is the Sufi position on Christ?

:)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. Dances et al

http://www.dancesofuniversalpeace.org will tell you about the Dances

The Sufis position on Jesus--he is one of the holy names and forms of God. Haz. Inayat Khan wrote a book called Unity of Religious Ideals that explains a lot about Jesus and Sufi thought of Jesus--you can read the chapter about Jesus below:

http://wahiduddin.net/mv2/IX/IX_25.htm

THE Christ spirit cannot be explained in words. The omnipresent intelligence, which is in the rock, in the tree, and in the animal, shows its gradual unfoldment in man. This is a fact accepted by both science and metaphysics. The intelligence shows its culmination in the complete development of human personality, such as the personality, which was recognized in Jesus Christ by his followers. The followers of Buddha recognized the same unfoldment of the object of creation in Gautama Buddha, and the Hindus saw the same in Shri Krishna. Those who followed Moses recognized it in him too, and they have maintained their belief for thousands of years; the same culmination of the all-pervading intelligence was recognized in Muhammad by his followers.

No man has the right to claim this stage of development, nor can anyone very well compare two holy men both recognized by their followers as the perfect Spirit of God. For a thoughtless person it is easy to express an opinion and to compare two people, but a thoughtful person first thinks whether he has arrived at that stage where he is able to compare two such personalities.

No doubt it is different when it concerns a question of belief. The belief of the Muslim cannot be the same as that of the Jewish people, nor can the Christian belief be the same as that of the Buddhists. However, the wise man understands all beliefs, for he is one with them all.

[PoiBoy]

5. Here's a link for you to consider..

I found it recently and find it interesting...

http://www.sojo.net/



:hi:

[JerseygirlCT]

21. Well, with the given that Kestrel described -- that you

most likely will not get "an" answer here -- as liberals we have an obligation to be as difficult to herd as cats, yes? -- I'll give it a go from my own personal point of view. (And I also reserve the right to have that change, lol!)

Is God the creator? Yes. The creator and the creative force in us all. I don't see the hand of God in life in a controlling way, as I believe we've been given free will, and make our choices. I do see the hand of God in the love always available to us from God. I see God in us and around us and everywhere -- not as a removed old man with a white beard just observing us. I see God in a child's laugh or in a beautiful piece of music or in the unexpected kindness of a stranger. I see it in the love we share with other people -- and looking at it that way, why wouldn't we always be striving to expand that?

I see Jesus as the gift of God -- taking on our human form and frailties, our pain, both emotional and physical, in order to demonstrate for us that we need have no fear, that there is life beyond this life.

I do NOT see God's love as reserved for those willing to proclaim a particular creed. I don't believe my "salvation" depends on some sort of loyalty oath. I tend not to see God in the terms we've inherited from our history such as Lord. Awesome, yes. Great beyond my feeble human imagining, yes. Male? No. Authoritarian? I'm not comfortable with that view, though many apparently are.

[Labors of Hercules]

22. God = Creator. Father. Son. Spirit?

Personal opinion here: Humans have evolved the need for high-order social and mental constructs to define existence and interaction. The most prolific and impactful of these is Divinity.

So how can someone who believes God as defined by most faiths is a fabrication of men, be Christian? Well... I believe that a man lived and taught, in the language of Judaism, the way to connect to a force that is coeternal with the Universe. That force so many call God and redefine in terms that little resemble "his" true nature. For this force is not he, and never has been.

And Jesus, when all the trappings have been torn away, was simpler than any story of his divinity. He was a man who taught other men how to live together on this earth. And the facts of his life have been perverted to conform to a "truth" that I believe is wrong in most respects, because Christ was not God, and never called himself God.

So much of what is Christian is not in who Jesus was, but who God is. Coeternal with the Universe. Not the creator of all but part of all... A presence that is experienced and communicated with, but never acting, never obeying... The best word I could come up with to describe what I believe God is... inspiration.

[Ron Green]

28. Thanks - I really like this post.

Watch out, though - there are some around here who'll jump on "inspiration" and "coeternal with the Universe," asking you to define your terms and be more specific!

:-)

[Labors of Hercules]

30. Thanks for the inspiration Ron...

Inspiration: not simply the processes of thought, but a power that animates us to surpass our own reason. What Quakers call the inner light. To put it in perspective, how often have you felt inspired for no apparent reason other than that you were open to it? That to me is evidence of God.

People seem to have a real problem with the concept of infinity. That God is coeternal with the Universe simply recognizes that all things need not have a beginning or an end. The theory that the universe is expanding from a Infinitesimally dense singularity at a fixed point in the past does not take into account the time before the Big Bang. Theologians who are intelligent enough to recognize that scientific theories can't be "faithed" away will tell you that God caused it to happen: God created the universe. This idea never has made sense to me. As a kid I asked, "so what was God doing during the infinity before he created everything? He must have been really bored"... It makes sense to me, (and if you know of scientific evidence to disprove it let me know), That if the universe is expanding from a point in the past, it should then contract upon itself at some point in the future. Take this pattern and multiply it by infinity: God is coeternal with the Universe.

You know, sometimes it just feels good to write down what we really believe... even if we are completely wrong, it has a way of clarifying what is important.

Thanks again Ron.