The God Problem 3 (and finally)

[Thats my opinion]

If God is the driving force, the energy, the substance, the Tao, the wisdom, that which is within and under everything, what do we do with this overwhelming notion? How do we relate to it and honor it? The traditional answer lies in the generation of social structures by which we seek to articulate and identify what we find at the depth of being. By our human institutions we affirm that life and the universe make sense. They are our testimony that life is not just “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”? The opposite of religion is nihilism, which asserts that there is no meaning or purpose in the universe.

If God can be defined as the energy at the heart of the cosmos, the creation of social structures is the way we celebrate and affirm that reality. Some of those structures and institutions are religious, but many are not. But like all institutions they tend to be faulty, prone to be more part of the problem than part of the answer. That is why they must continually be rethought and renewed

Religious history is a record of the ways in which people over the centuries have sought to make real in society what they sensed about reality—that is about God. The problem with the Biblical witness is not that its creators were wrong, but that they had a cosmology—a theory of how the universe was put together—which assumed that God was a person up there somewhere. If we have indeed lost that image, are we now called to make sense of life using a very different notion of reality? What if we image God not as above, but in “all things,” (ta panta) within the depth of meaning and purpose at the core of the universe.

If there is love, beauty, purpose, meaning, hope, they lie at the heart of reality. When these break through and we see them, we build vessels to incarnate them. Some of these vessels are churches, creeds, doctrines, liturgies, cathedrals. But some are governments, universities, hospitals, symphonies, oratorios, paintings. And some are evidenced in compassion, hospitality, peace, equity, justice. Many of these have been generated by religious people and their institutions. But many have other roots.

It is my personal conviction that no one better articulated this notion of God than Jesus, who knew that love lay at the heart of reality. If God is not a person up there somewhere, perhaps Jesus is all of God we can see in human form—or as the early church saw him—fully God and fully human. Yet like all religious people and religious structures, he only pointed to that deeper reality by what he did and what he taught—even by how he died.

If a long time ago the notion of a two story universe disappeared, along with its personal God up here somewhere, the day may be dawning, now centuries later, that the institutions and religions which grew out of that notion, are also beginning to disappear. The result, at its best, may be the dawning of a very different notion of God. God may be the power with a purpose at the heart of the cosmos, the source of life which affirms the meaning of all that is—(ta panta). Whatever institutions are being created to give witness to that reality, they must be free from any sectarian impulse, and will recognize that the God in all things is not the sole possession of any one religion or social form.

[rrneck]

1. While an interesting read I find your description of God unsatisfying.

I think we can more or less all agree (at least here) that the concept of a "God in heaven" is no longer tenable in light of the scientific discoveries made in the last few hundred years. So while the idea of a God "up there somewhere" is no longer tenable, the idea of a God that is at the heart of existence in the form of the "driving force" of everything really doesn't move God to a more tenable position. Science is working diligently on a ToE and sooner or later we will have to move God to yet another amorphous location to keep the notion of a deity current with the latest scientific discoveries. That I think is hardly any way to treat a concept so important to so many people.

Your conception of God is not functionally different from any other conception of a deity as a creator or first mover of the physical world and everything in it. Whether we surround God with clouds and putti or abstract concepts related to energy, God is still over there somewhere. It seems that what you have done is move him from the attic to the first floor study.

If you find that conception of God satisfying, and many people do, I wouldn't argue that you change it at my behest. I can also see potential pitfalls in such a definition of God. If God can be interpreted as a destination that is apart from ourselves, there will always be someone willing to offer conveyance to enlightenment - for a price. And with that price come all the evils that have little to do with enlightenment and everything to do with control of resources and power.

[Thats my opinion]

2. I'm with you pretty much through your post. It is intelligent and important--

until you get down to the "price." So what is the price? And where in what I described has anything to do with it.

[rrneck]

4. Cab fare.

If God is somewhere else, and someone claims to know where he is and how to get there, they can command a hefty fee for the one true path to enlightenment, redemption, 72 virgins or whatever. If God is something out there yet to be discovered, he becomes an objective, an object, and a potential commodity.

[Phillip McCleod]

64. perhaps the fundamental moral problem of the question of god.

nature will explore every possible configuration of energy on the way to heat death. implied in this is murder, war, hate, and scam-artists.

[okasha]

5. If I understand this part of the essay correctly,

TMO's God is not «over there» but «in here,» or as Jesus said, «the Kingdom of Heaven is within you.» This also obviates alleged geographical problems with the Lord's Prayer.

[rrneck]

6. "If God can be defined as the energy at the heart of the cosmos"...

Geographical problems are avoided, but conceptual issues remain to my mind. Descriptions of a deity in the context of a sort of motivating energy, while more compatible with current scientific theory, do not give us any more of a concrete relationship to the concept of a deity than particle physics. God was in the heavens before the advent of space flight, and now he is hidden in the relationships between sub atomic particles or the stuff that defines the universe. Same God, different gaps.

Such a conception of God in no way invalidates the sense of wonder we may feel toward the world around us, nor does it obviate the importance of that sense of wonder in the reality of people's lives. This particular narrative seems to me to be, while close, a bit too facile.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. It also shrinks "god" down to an irrelevance.

Lets just grant that "god" was the singularity that winked this universe into being. Ok. Now what in the name of the Great Irrelevance does that collection of myths in the bible have to do with it?

If Sparky isn't the meddlesome and frequently nasty overlord of the bible, what is all the fuss about?

The meddlesome and frequently nasty gods of the bible explained a poorly understood world to a primitive society. Those gods are dead because they no longer explain anything. What we are left with is the ongoing 300 year sputtering out of the former explanation.

[rrneck]

17. As far as I'm concerned

the bible is fiction and theology is literary criticism. As literature, the bible is not really designed to empirically explain anything but rather to give form to our internal lives in the context of the world in which we live. Unfortunately, since it's The Bible revisions to accurately reflect cultural changes have been erratic, spotty and occasionally violent. Probably because a lot of money and power depend on keeping it the way it is.

I think Charles' interpretation of christian faith is an effort to place God in the center of our modern understanding of causality. That understanding today is concerned with things like quantum mechanics, microbiology and other aspects of the natural world that are too small or remote to be directly percieved but nevertheless have an impact on our culture. It's a sort of "new agey" Christianity and if that works for him it's fine with me.

I think problems arise when revisions to Christian doctrine have more to to with effective marketing than spiritual enlightenment. Given the importance of religion and an interpretation of the nature of God in the exercise of power throughout human history, we should exercise special care and a healthy dose of skepticism regarding a new understanding of the divine. I find Charles conception of God unsatisfying because it seems to depend more on cultural changes for popular appeal than give a deeper insight into our understanding of our place within them.

[Thats my opinion]

19. If marketing is our problem, we have serious difficulties.

We cannot easily market a concept which flies in the face of that much tradition. Our real effort is to come to terms with what we are beginning to know about how the world works.

In your first sentence you use the word "fiction." That's too simple. Some of it is at least based in history. Some of it is poetry, and some of it is Myth--in the classic sense of that word. Stories which tell about what never happened but is always true. All of it is the struggle of people from a variety of ages to come to terms with the great mystery which surrounds life.

[rrneck]

48. Oh, I think it would be easy to market.

In a culture that gave us the pet rock, marketing isn't the problem. The difficulty is in market domination. For most of human history religion was the only game in town, and a theocratic power structure was usually employed to make sure it stayed that way. Nowadays people can project their faith in any of a million different directions. There is really no difference between a revival meeting and the wave at a baseball game. Religion has, for all intents and purposes, become indistinguishable from any other brand loyalty. The most successful religions are little more than media empires for a reason.

Fiction isn't simple. Literature is one of the arts, and the arts are very complicated to produce and understand. Making art is like juggling spaghetti in a tornado. Everything you do retroactively affects everything else you have done and proactively everything you can do in the future. If science were like art-making the experiment would depend not only on the measurable qualities of the experiment itself but how the scientist feels about it, how anyone reviewing the results of the experiment feel and how all those feelings relate to the zeitgeist of feelings, expectations, fears, hopes and regrets of the culture at large over time and in relation to everything that has gone before. There has certainly been plenty of historical fiction since the bible was written and references to the world around the narrative are crucial to helping people understand what is going on and identify with the characters.

I doubt that reimagining Christianity again will prove helpful in the times ahead. Religion in general and Christianity in particular have hitched their cart to an expansionist mindset and here in the twenty first century with seven billion people on the planet and the specter of resource depletion, there is nowhere left to expand to. We may be on the cusp of another Axial Age, and any search for God shouldn't depend on the zeitgeist that got us into this mess.

[Thats my opinion]

57. You may be largely right,

But the gambler in me is willing to bet that when history moves on, the human hunger for meaning beyond the self will produce some amazing and unexpected things. We may not agree, but I find your analysis stimulating.

[rrneck]

58. Same here.

For example, your phrase "meaning beyond the self" is very interesting. That, and coupled with the self reference to gambling. They are interesting ideas. If I find time I'll do an OP about the subject. My OP's tend to run long and sink like a stone, but it might be fun to let the gang take it apart.

This thread reminds me of a couple of paintings. Both were made by the same people, using the same process. And they are about the same thing.

[Thats my opinion]

60. Do it. I'd love to have a look.

I'm also a water color artist, and now and then i do something that doesn't look like I've done it.

[Phillip McCleod]

65. super interesting take on things.

and thanks for point out that art is complicated. you must be a fellow limner.

i love that word. one who enlightens.

[rrneck]

71. Of a sort...

although batshit crazy pomo anxious object shit flinger might be more accurate.

[Phillip McCleod]

73. accuracy is important.

nobody said art has to be 'beautiful'.

[Thats my opinion]

16. A sense of wonder!! You bet

I hear your caveat.Obviously we need to do a better job articulating this concept. Many of us are paying more attention to modern science, where we find important clues. Thanks for the clarification.

[rrneck]

18. You're welcome.

You may not believe it but I've annoyed more atheists than believers here. While I would be considered an atheist by most anybody, including myself, that doesn't mean I don't see something that people call "God" and the practice of faith everywhere I look, including myself.

Our task might be described as a search to adequately describe our experience of the divine rather than defining the nature or location of God.

[Thats my opinion]

20. Whenever I have had the opportunitg to deal with and be challenged by atheists or agnostics

I have profited, and learned something. I take you seriously here because you are seriously trying to criticize as well as understand. This group would be better were there more posters who do that sort of thoughtful work.

[skepticscott]

7. Which ignores the rather obvious fact

that Charles doesn't think "Jesus" was anything to do with "god", since he has rejected the notion that "god" was a person in any way, shape or form. And Jesus said many, many things that don't conform with this notion of "god", even if you're stretching reason to the limits.

[trotsky]

10. Swing and a miss, okasha.

"The kingdom of GOD is within you" is from Luke 17:21, but if you read just a couple more verses (i.e., IN CONTEXT), you would find Luke 17:24 - "For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day."

Then there's also:

John 3:5
"Jesus answered, 'Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.'"

Matthew 5:16-20
"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Heaven's a place inside, eh?

[okasha]

44. Nothing you've 'posted here

contradicts the interior nature of the Kingdom of Heaven Two quotes do refer to the sky and are irrelevant.

[trotsky]

53. Wow, argument by declaration.

Your reasoning is so compelling ("I'm right so shut up&quot , I don't see how anyone could disagree with you.

[cleanhippie]

55. Are you ever going to apologize for your baseless allegation that I was blocked from another group?

Are you going to show that you possess even a speck of integrity and courage and admit that you fabricated your slanderous claim in a childish attempt to discredit me?

No? For all your blather about "getting along" and "working together", your actions show hypocrisy. Rank hypocrisy.

[cleanhippie]

13. Are you ever going to apologize for your baseless allegation that I was blocked from another group?

Are you going to show that you possess even a speck of integrity and courage and admit that you fabricated your slanderous claim in a childish attempt to discredit me?

No? For all your blather about "getting along" and "working together", your actions show hypocrisy. Rank hypocrisy.

[Thats my opinion]

15. Good-- but the Greek word translated "you" is 2nd person plural.

Thus, "the Kingdom of heaven is among you."

[SarahM32]

49. rrneck, I see what you mean.

I'm referring to your following comment:

Your conception of God is not functionally different from any other conception of a deity as a creator or first mover of the physical world and everything in it. Whether we surround God with clouds and putti or abstract concepts related to energy, God is still over there somewhere. It seems that what you have done is move him from the attic to the first floor study.

I agree with that, because I believe God is not "out there" but within us, and within all life and form, the pure Essence.

However, I disagree with you in part because I also believe God is the Divine Light-Energy-Source of our existence, the primordial vibration or "Word" that is made flesh in us and manifested in everything, from the smallest nano-particle to the smallest atom to the galaxy to the universe.

[rrneck]

50. Fine by me.

Of course, by placing God everywhere it makes it easy to point him out and get credit for it. That's just Guru for profit 101. It depends on the desires of others for its own identification much the way Kincaid painting depends on the projected needs of people to be told what they want to hear.

[trotsky]

3. Matthew 6:9-13

"Pray then like this: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."

Here, in one of the key fundamental prayers of Christianity, believers affirm that heaven is a place, and that the Christian god dwells there. I think you need to be preaching to Christians of the world in their churches, telling them how they're all wrong. Good luck.

[skepticscott]

8. Charles has also failed

to address the notion of an afterlife in any of his proclamations. Wonder why that is?

[trotsky]

11. He's wasted too much time telling everyone how a society lacking religious belief...

would be intolerable for anyone to live in.

Yes, those poor people in those increasingly non-religious social democracies of Europe. Their lives are just horrid.

[edhopper]

12. Occam's Razor

would necessitate that the "God" described here is superfluous and therefore there is no reason to assume it's existence.
The Universe works quite well without this conjectured "underlying energy".

You seem to confuse subjective experiences with objective reality.

[Thats my opinion]

22. If the world were just made up of things it wouldn't work at all.

Energy is primary. Things are secondary. The Biblical myth of the first creation story (Genesis 1) begins "let there be light"--even light is subsidiary. Occam would be right to conclude that the simplest explanation for the universe is that God simply created it out of nothing. But maybe things are not as simple as Occam might have wished.

[trotsky]

23. You really need to stay away from making scientific claims about matter & energy.

Stick with philosophizing about gods. You clearly don't understand science.

[Angry Dragon]

32. Question: Matter is also made up of energy, correct??

[trotsky]

33. E=mc^2

That's the recipe for fun!

[edhopper]

30. You are still presupposing God exists.

Facts not in evidence.
Occam's razor would not conclude any such thing. It does conclude that there is no need for any God to explain the Universe.
And your answer simply moves the question further back to "How was God created?"

[Thats my opinion]

31. The quesrion, "How was God created?" just pretends God is another thing.

But what if beyond all thingness there is that essential Mystery. The Cartesian model which has dominated all western notions until recently may be obsessed with things and sequences. And certainly the scientific model
has offered amazing insights into reality---but it is not the only way to confront life. It does not stand in awe of that which is beyond sheer physicality.

And Occam? Certainly the notion of creation out of nothing is much slmpler than the dozen theories that are currently being worked through scientifically. It just may be that both have some level worth contemplating. At least I am willing to accept them. Otherwise we have a very one dimensional reality.

[trotsky]

34. And you're pretending that the universe is just another thing.

But it isn't. It's the universe. It's unlike any other thing in existence. There is nothing at all that your "god" adds to the situation other than another unnecessary layer of complexity. It doesn't explain anything, it doesn't predict anything. You've just bolted it on to make yourself feel better.

[skepticscott]

35. To those out there wondering

You're not slow on the uptake. But what if beyond all thingness there is that essential Mystery really IS meaningless. Special pleading covered in five layers of chocolate woo-woo. If it made no sense to you, you're going to do all right in this life..

[edhopper]

54. What "Mystery"?

and why is it essential?

[Phillip McCleod]

66. matter is energy. energy is matter.

tomayto, tomahto. the problem of how hierarchic organisms like us came into being is really not a matter for ontology, which is only interested in What Is, but for complexity theory. that is: for science. not quantum mechanics, but regular classical mechanics, albeit in a mathematical framework that admits a great deal of uncertainty.

personally, when i had a shred of religious interest, it was in kabbalah, and precisely because it treats many theological questions as ontological and so permits some speculation worthy of scifi about the being of god.

so it might be worth point out that creation emanates from ayin, from nothingness, and does so now. always now. ever now, there being no other moment.

[Angry Dragon]

14. Why is there a need to honor a force??

[Phillip McCleod]

67. one word: midi-chlorians

nuf sed?

[Angry Dragon]

69. Have no idea what you just said ...............

[Phillip McCleod]

72. really? star wars?

midi-chlorians? microscopic super-beings that impart jedi super-powers? they're only one of the awesomest obscure, wedged-in afterthoughts in modern scifi.

[Angry Dragon]

74. I liked Star Wars .... I must have missed that

[Goblinmonger]

21. Please let me know where I go wrong in your thoughts:

1. Religion (i.e. belief in God) has caused good things in society
2. God isn't a deity, per se, but that underlying "thing" which is goodness in everyone.

I think I have you right, yes?

Therefore, good things are caused by goodness. Ain't that circular? Help me out, man.

[Thats my opinion]

24. I would like to respond

but being a Bayer of very small brain, I am not sure what you are asking. However you have defined your two issues, i have not yet understood them. I would not say anything like you have said here--so clarify and maybe we can discuss it.

[Goblinmonger]

25. Perhaps I'm not being clear

in the past, I think you have said that Religion has been the basis for people doing good things--a belief in God being one of the key components of what defines a religion.

No, in your latest "series" you seem to be arguing that "God" is something that you see as being whatever fundamental force/thing/thought that is goodness in people.

If those two are positions you have taken (which I think I got right), it seems to me that you are, in essence, saying that goodness causes people to do good things. That would be circular. And, beyond that, if all you are saying is that goodness causes people to do good things, then who needs religion? People do good things because they are good people. The atheists in the group have been arguing that all along. That we, ultimately, can take "religion" out of the equation. Your current definition of what "god" is seems to make that all the more clear.

And I really don't need your snark. I was more than polite in my response to you.

[skepticscott]

26. You were perfectly clear

to everyone here without an agenda of self-promotion. But Charles has not quite tumbled to the fact that his proclamations contradict themselves in many ways, and your rather simple point brought him up short, I suspect. His feigned incomprehension seems more like a stalling tactic, so I'd be ready for a very fudgy and non-relevant response when it comes.

[trotsky]

27. Perfectly clear to me too.

The point of Charles' three-post manifesto is to label the goodness, the "energy," as GOD.

He needs to believe in a god - and desperately needs others to validate his belief, so his entire construction is an attempt to draw a line around something - ANYTHING - that's sufficiently vague and safe from being disproven, and slap the three big letters on it.

[skepticscott]

28. It occurred to me to wonder

how many Serious Catholic Theologians Charles has managed to sell on this, on the idea that "god" is not a person, among other things. I'm sure he's had many Productive and Meaningful discussions with such people...but how many do you think took him remotely seriously?

[trotsky]

37. I believe the answer is best demonstrated...

by the fact that he's trying to sell his ideas on an anonymous message board.

[skepticscott]

29. Apparently you didn't get the memo

Pointing out potential flaws in someone's thinking (i.e. Charles' thinking) is never polite, and smacks of gotchaism.

[Thats my opinion]

36. G.....m Having dealt with you over the last couple of years,

I'm never sure whether you really want to engage in a serious conversation or belong to that small cabal which just wants to smack down anything said outside their rather ultra conservative viewpoint. But for now, until it is obvious I am wrong, I'll take your question at face value--while I ,as usual, I simply ignore the sniping from the peanut gallery.

Yes, i have said that some religion brings out the noble in people so that they do good things. Some religion does very bad things, and some non-religionists do very good things. Nobody has a corner on either. When the notion of God is one of love, graciousness, forgiveness, benevolence--and people are called to emulate that in the world and with one another, yes that notion of God leads some people to do very good things. Not for any reward, but that is just how the world best works. There are millions of examples. Just look around.

And yes I see what you call this "fundamental force" as the epitome of the passion to lift all of life. The most common example is evolution. In individuals the best examples are in the millions of people who spend their lives in service. Gandhi, King, Francis--just to name a quick three.

So want is goodness?. Is it just some abstract quality which has it no rootage, no cause, no examples? Or is there nothing that calls people to the good , benevolent, forgiving, gracious life? Left to our own inclinations we are a pretty bloodthirsty bunch. Civilization in the thin veneer over the jungle. The basic untouched law of life is that of tooth and claw. Culture--art, music, architecture, poetry, religion, cathedrals, ritual, faith, hope and love all offer a different path. Find me a few civilizations with all that religion has provided removed or never there, and I wonder what kind of culture you would have.

Is religion all and only good? We both know better. But save us from living in a society devoid of its art, music, beauty, compassion and hope. I can't think of any, can you? Name one. And would you choose to live there/

[trotsky]

38. And there's your prejudice against atheists on display again.

Why do think non-believers are incapable of producing art, music, beauty, compassion, and hope? Do you believe we are somehow less than human?

[Thats my opinion]

40. Never said that and don't believe it.

[trotsky]

41. I truly believe you honestly have no idea how insulting and offensive your words are.

And you certainly have no desire whatsoever to understand why.

[skepticscott]

47. Here's what you don't get, Charles, in the midst of your juvenile sniping

about the "peanut gallery", (in reference to anyone who doesn't bow and scrape before your proclamations). Whether you respond to substantive criticisms of your posts or not doesn't matter. The responses are not primarily for you in any case. They are for all of the people out there who read, but don't post, and who aren't just willing to swallow what you say whole. If you choose to put your fingers in your ears and let the criticism be the last word, that's your business, but pretending it doesn't exist or doesn't matter won't make it so. And despite your incessant puffery about being such a wonderful "discusser" of things, when you can only get agreement from people who were of the same mind to begin with, and not from people who weren't predisposed to agree with you, you really haven't made much of a case for anything, now have you?

[Thats my opinion]

51. So I only respond to people who agree with me?--as you have just charged

IN THIS string, I had heard from and had sharp disagreements with
rrrneck 1,4, 6 17
Angry Dragon 14, 18'
Ed Hopper 12, 30
Globin 21, 25

and a couple of others.
and I have responded to all of them every time they took me on
I enjoy and always learn from those who really dispute what I have posted

If I never respond to you and about three others--and won't-- just read the nature of your attacks, and you will know why.

[skepticscott]

52. Truly amazing..you read my post and all you could do was lie

about what I said. Show us where, in my post you just responded to, I said that you only respond to people you agree with. You can't, because I didn't say that, but for some reason you needed that make that up, and ignore everything substantial that I DID write. Sheesh.

And you know what's really sad, Charles? Everyone can see it. My post is right there. And yet you still feel the need to lie about it, even knowing that anyone who can read will know that you've lied. And even if you choose to call everyone of my legitimate criticisms an "attack" (your favorite tactic when you've been put on the defensive), there are lots of people here who see through that too, even if you don't realize it.

[mr blur]

56. Are you really surprised, though?

One of his favourite tactics. Along with labeling any disagreement as an "attack".

I just keep out of it - he doesn't reply to me anyway because I'm a "nasty" atheist and not suitably impressed by his intellect and refuse to wrap myself in the warm, fuzzy waffle that he appears to have made his life's work.

What a sad way to spend the short time you get.

[Thats my opinion]

59. Try this

"And despite your incessant puffery about being such a wonderful "discusser" of things, when you can only get agreement from people who were of the same mind to begin with, and not from people who weren't predisposed to agree with you, you really haven't made much of a case for anything, now have you?"

And I can find two or the other that make the same smear, like this one:

You've got your mind set in stone on this, and don't want to hear anything but fawning praise, so why not save everyone the time and just admit it?

[skepticscott]

61. Nice try, Charles, but major fail

In neither of those quotes do I say anything remotely like "you only respond to people you agree with"

In the first, I pointed out that if your argument only convinces people who were already inclined to agree with you, and not any skeptics, then you haven't made much of a case. Nothing about who you respond to.

In the second, I point out what you seem to what to hear, and also said absolutely nothing about who you respond to.

This is so explicitly clear in what I said, Charles, that it's hard to believe that you still decided to double down on your dishonesty..but there it is.

[trotsky]

62. Being completely unable to admit error seems to run in the family. n/t

[skepticscott]

63. You see, Charles...this is why you get so little respect around here

You say something untrue about someone. You're called on it. You offer a lame defense that was shown quite clearly to be inadequate. Do you say "sorry, I was wrong"? Or even "I'm right, and your reasons for saying I'm not are clearly wrong, and here's why"? The first I could respect, and even in some way, the second. But you did neither. You ran away and hid, rather than simply admit that what you said wasn't true.

[SarahM32]

39. Very well said, Charles. Good work.

I just have some comments about one paragraph:

It is my personal conviction that no one better articulated this notion of God than Jesus, who knew that love lay at the heart of reality. If God is not a person up there somewhere, perhaps Jesus is all of God we can see in human form—or as the early church saw him—fully God and fully human. Yet like all religious people and religious structures, he only pointed to that deeper reality by what he did and what he taught—even by how he died.

I think it is true that Jesus did articulate the most accurate notion of God at that time, if we consider both the official church canon and the gospels that were not included in it, and if we realize that some of what is in the canon was fabricated Pauline theology based on a misinterpretation of the Hebrew Torah and Tanakh.

The essential message of Jesus is there even in the canon, though, and Christians who understand it recognize it (while Theocrats who masquerade as Christians don't).

The part I disagree with is your mention that "perhaps Jesus is all of God we can see in human form—or as the early church saw him—fully God and fully human." Even the official church canon is contradictory regarding that subject, since Jesus said: "You have not heard God's voice or seen God's shape at any time," and "God is greater than I." I believe Jesus said that acknowledging that a servant of God is not equal to the Holy One who sent him, and that, as Isaiah wrote, no man can be compared to God.

I, like Thomas Jefferson (who said: "Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus.&quot love the essence and heart of Jesus' universal teachings, but I believe much in the canon is problematic, as it has proven to be during the last sixteen centuries.

During the Enlightenment many great thinkers realized that. And Jefferson even wrote: "Among the sayings and discourses imputed to Jesus by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."

Therfore, I believe that while it is important and crucial that we redefine or better describe what God really is, it is equally important and crucial to bring about a New Reformation of all religions, particularly the Abrahamic religions.
.

[goldent]

42. Not ready to leave my organized religion...

but you presented some interesting ideas.

What would it mean if we could detect or prove a supernatural force or intelligence but could not communicate with it?

[Thats my opinion]

43. I suppose what it might mean to communicate would give the answer.

When I listen to or sing in the Mozart requiem, am I not in communion with that great force of goondnss and purpose that we may call God? Or when in church I am given a bit of bread and a sip of wine and sense my participation with people all over the world and in every age, is that not communion--communication. When I an struck by the impulse to feed the hungry or stand by the dying, what would you call that.When I know that I must stand for justice, peace, equity. is not that to have been in communication with something beyond myself?

How would you answer your own question?

[goldent]

45. Not a bad answer

I was hoping for something a little more direct, but that would be too easy.

[SarahM32]

46. And another way to think of it is ...

The solution has little to do with religion. It has to do with rebirth of the spirit, and a uniting of the mind, body and spirit, which produces spiritual wholeness and oneness. It comes by divine revelation and the realization that we are not separate, but connected; not superior, but equal in the sight of God.

God waits to bless you with the greatest gift that you will ever receive, when you find your key to open the first door of revelation and discover the way to receive it. You may not receive it in this lifetime, but seeking it, and trying to be worthy of it, will make your life much better.

If and when you do receive it, you will know that we are one in Spirit. You will know that the "Word" that was in the beginning, which is with God and is God, is made flesh in you, and in all of us. But it is not an actual word that you can speak. It is the primordial vibration, the very essence of the Divine Light-Energy-Source of our existence. It is what gives vibratory life to every thing, from the smallest parts of the smallest atoms, to atomic elements, all the way to the planets, the galaxy, the universe, and the cosmos. From the most minuscule microcosm to the largest macrocosm, its essence is Divine Light Energy, the source of our being.

The primordial vibration is also the seed of consciousness itself, which has over much time blossomed and grown into the Book of Life. God is the Supreme Consciousness, and all the knowledge of humanity and the lives of all human beings is contained in it. And this is not merely an esoteric concept known only to those who’ve been initiated and anointed by the Holy Spirit. It is an exoteric, literal, biblical concept of the Divine Reality. Even Moses wrote about it.

The divine light-energy and primordial vibration is best known to us through our senses that perceive light and sound, which are major manifestations of the Divine Spirit. And they just happen to be what can reach and affect us best when we gather in groups and audiences. That is why we feel so good when we gather together to watch beautiful dancing or listen to good music, which we not only see and hear, but feel in our solar plexus and in our heart and soul. And our focused and concerted attention on the same source of entertainment brings us even closer together as the brothers and sisters that we are.

God brings us together, as does love, joy, laughter, good music, graceful dance, good wine, and all beautiful, creative arts. They are expressions of our love of God, and of God’s love for us.

May everyone open their mind and heart, and realize that.

Quoted from the end of The Highest State of Consciousness.
.

[Phillip McCleod]

68. what if we could all fly?

or had heat vision? what if the earth wasn't spherical, but flat? what if, now hold on, this on'es really far out.. what if..

..we were..

..the center..

..of the universe?

[skepticscott]

70. Bottom line, Charles

This is nothing more than your own interpretation. You have no evidence for any of it. Even your own daughter thinks that.