Defining God and Personal Faith

[frankandcathy]

Hey all. I have been thinking lately about how it seems wrong to many folks to say, "I know that this is who God is." Or maybe it's grating to some to say, "I can say with certainty that this is who God is...and I think you're wrong about who YOU think He is."

I guess I"ve been pondering the liberal vs. conservative theology and the tendency for liberal theologians to be unable or unwilling to pin down specifics on who God is or how he manifests himself. Or to limit the specifics to only "good" things. I certainly understand WHY this is happening but I'm wondering if those who are unable to say with clarity who God is are lacking a personal relationship with Him.

What I mean is this: If I say, "all paths lead to God" or "who am I to say who God is or isn't" then how close can I really get to God? It seems to me that it's akin to trying to attach yourself to an ever-shifting nebulous "thing" instead of a person with definite features and characteristics.

I hope that's making sense. I guess what I'm wondering is: for those who find it difficult to nail down anything about God except that "God is love," does that hinder having an intimate relationship with Him?

I think I find my relationship to God grounded in the idea that Christ was a real man, he said real stuff. There is a tangibility to what he thought, said, and felt because I believe that He IS God. If I were to believe that "all roads lead to God," I don't think I could relate to God in a personal way because I wouldn't know where to find out about who He is. I would therefore not feel as though He were accessible in a real way. Sure, he's loving but what's His personality like? What kind of things would He say to me? To others?

I'm not talking here about how you interpret scripture or anything of that nature. I'm just wondering about the personal God vs. the large, over-arching deity concept.

Thanks,
~C

Also, I've written in several posts and can't seem to find a way to go back and find them again. Is there a search function for this?

[frankandcathy]

I figured out the search issue. Thanks.

I already had one private message talking about the way that CCs in particular seem to be able to ONLY define God in "their" way. That's a discussion I'd hoped to avoid here. I understand the pitfalls.

What I'm wondering about is those who do NOT define God in any particular way except maybe "God is love" or "God is everything." I mean those who don't use personal characteristics to define God, I guess.

How do THOSE people have personal relationship with Him? Is it easy? Difficult? How so?

Thanks and Merry Christmas!
~C

[BruceChris]

I just saw your posting re Defining God, and I find it very thought provoking. Vastly more thought provoking is that I have come to learn that there are usually SO many more people, usually but not always CC's, who believe that They have a basic understanding of who and what God is, and that this must represent Truth, for everybody. I believe that if this is applied rigidly enough, it becomes idolatry, and ultimately, religious fascism.

I choose to believe that God has a slightly higher opinion of those who believe in a God of Love, however defined, than those who insist in eagerly looking forward to the sight of "Sinners in the Hands of an ANGRY GOD", as someone once preached.

I also believe that God sees us at least as much in terms of our intentions as She does in terms of our actions.

Some people might then assume that anyone who does not share their understanding is (variously) ignorant, unsaved, heretical, (blasphemous even), or at the very least, a member of a denomination that God does not really approve of, all that much. :disagree:

I choose to define religion as one's personal relationship with God. Given that there are 6 billion of us, God really ought to have 6 billion images, and there would then be that many religions. And, of course each person can only have their own understanding of what they believe God to be, or how they experience God. (more later)

P&L, BC
__________________

[BruceChris]

As you may notice, I've softened my language Re people who have what I would choose to call an overly rigid definition of God. Sorry 'bout that.

I find that my understandings of God, the universe, myself, and other people is constantly changing. I would prefer to call this learning, or perhaps updating. (I do not fear "NOT KNOWING")

There is probably a fundamental (by which I mean basic) difference between those who see the world as open ended, as a set of open ended questions, and those who need to believe that there is an exact answer to everything, even if they don't know what it is.

Even Albert Einstein, when confronted with growing evidence of the truths of Quantum Physics, was deeply disturbed by it. FYI, Quantum Physics tells us not only that there are a vast number of scientific questions that do not have anything remotely resembling an exact answer, but in many cases even the concept of an "Exact Answer" is meaningless. There was a time in his life when Einstein would sometimes grumble angrily that "God does not play dice with the universe".

But of course, science cannot address religion, and religionists would be wise to not try to tell science what it can, and cannot do. -- "The Bible is not a science book", from Vatican ll.

I can remember our former minister, Rebecca, looking across the street at the AOG church there, and saying, "Well, they may think THEY have all the Answers, but WE have all the Questions", said with perhaps just a wee bit too much pride. I would describe Rebecca as intelligent, educated, optimistic, happy and healthy, very liberal (UCC, after all), and with a clear vision that when the Love of God is brought to earth, it will bring the blessings of God to all, and would undoubtedly be done in a manner that she would thoroughly approve of. -- Did I mention opinionated in there, somewhere? She LIKES herself, and so most of the people she meets find that they also like her. I'll give you her website, if you ask. She is, of course, lesbian, and at the moment, Pregnant. (And she did it first. Mary Cheney, eat your heart out!)

Rambling, here, but I am having FUN. Back to your question. There is only one God, but S/He seems to come in three pieces, when you include Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Kind of like a vast computer network, that can detach any part of itself at any time, for any reason, to fulfill an individual function, and yet still function as One. This brings up the thought that although God may be eternal and unchanging, each one of us may have our own, personal, individualized and custom crafted unique God, made just for each one of us, and yet still be fully integrated with the One God. But this of course does not mean that that God is with us just to make us comfortable, so that we do not have to grow.

To try to define God in any way, is often said to be trying to limit God.

Maybe in some churches, the congregation is cowed into believing Exactly what they are told, or exactly what the minister says, while in other churches, the minister may fear that if he (oh, excuse me, he or she) says anything too definite in some areas, it may disillusion some of the members, reduce the attendence, and maybe even the reduce the collection, God Forbid.

It also occurs to me that MANY peolpe who call themselves "Born Again" are actually frightened, confused, and have never had a transforming experience of The Devine. (I know that I have not, yet) But they are SCARED TO DEATH of admitting this to their fellow congregants. So when in doubt, become rigid and militant.

But back to your question, again. I like to think that one of the best answers was given by Billy Graham's wife. She said something like - the process of learning about God, traveling with her husband on his crusades, attending church, praying, and reading the Bible was such a long journey, and she can never say at exactly what point in her life she did become a Christian. And that's the path that I seem to be on.

God's Grace, Peace, and Love unto you, Bruce Chris

[andrewlittle]

I guess I"ve been pondering the liberal vs. conservative theology and the tendency for liberal theologians to be unable or unwilling to pin down specifics on who God is or how he manifests himself. ...but I'm wondering if those who are unable to say with clarity who God is are lacking a personal relationship with Him.

...It seems to me that it's akin to trying to attach yourself to an ever-shifting nebulous "thing" instead of a person with definite features and characteristics.

...for those who find it difficult to nail down anything about God except that "God is love," does that hinder having an intimate relationship with Him?

...I would therefore not feel as though He were accessible in a real way. Sure, he's loving but what's His personality like? What kind of things would He say to me? To others?

I'm not talking here about how you interpret scripture or anything of that nature. I'm just wondering about the personal God vs. the large, over-arching deity concept.

Hi again Cathy,

There's really so much in the questions on this thread. Hopefully, over several posts everyone's thought will start to flesh out. I didn't pick out the parts that I have a problem with, but those that I felt were main talking points. I guess I'm saying, "I'm NOT going to bust your chops."

Don't feel lonely with the liberal/conservative theology thing. The truth is there's very few conservative theologies that did not come about as answers to liberal theologies. Before you sit bolt upright and take me to task, let me explain.

Liberal theology developed as a result of the renaissance and the enlightenment and the advent of scientific thinking. Theology changed with "knowledge" about the "real" world we inhabit. Apart from some very staunch Zwinglians and communitarian sects (people like the Amish and other segregational anabaptists and reformed folk), almost all modern theology came through the liberal period.

As a reaction to modernization (the continued developments in psychology, sociology and other -ologies that affected theology), some theologians noticed a need to return to more "traditional" roots. By this point, however, there was not a clear line of thought that could be a "conservative theology." Fundamentalism developed by re-interpreting much of the Bible in more literal ways, as opposed to the analytical, experiental ways that has become the norm.

Okay, as a result, while there were some points on which fundamentalists agreed, there were many on which they couldn't. This is why so many fundamental but non-denominational churches came into being. Pentecostalism was one form of fundamentalism, but others included certain Baptist, Reformed, Methodist, Anglican and even Catholic churches. Eventually these became loosely known as Evangelical, even while there were churches in the "liberal" tradition that were evangelical. For decades, pentecostals would not recognize the Southern Baptists as evangelical, because the latter came from liberal tradition more recently than they did.

All this is to say there is no good definition of either liberal or conservative theology, it looks more like a spectrum of thoughts.

You spoke very personally about God, so I will too.

I, unlike some of my Presbyterian counterparts, also believe in Jesus Christ as fully god and fully human. I recognize the intense tension that exists with this formulation, but it rings true to me. I also believe that humans are made in God's image. Since there is such a variety of humans - not limited to gender, race, build, features, etc - I also believe that no-one is a perfect image of God.

For God to come as "fully human" meant that God came as a specific human being and that the physical form of Jesus does not represent a perfect image of God. So, I don't believe God is male (50/50 shot on gender), middle-eastern (certainly not European, either), bearded, having a specific skin color, height, etc. God is God and I am but one aspect of the totality of God. Each and every other human is also an incomplete image of God.

So I, as has everyone else as far as I know, have made a mental image of what God represents to me. Is it complete - no. Is it concrete - no. Is it accurate - no. But it allows me to have a personal relationship with God, one that I can partially understand. But I am also aware that my imagining of what God is like is slanted and flawed. It is incomplete, just as I am incomplete as an image of God. Therefore, I try to avoid projecting my imagery onto others and, when I can, I try to understand others' images of God in terms of what makes God personal to them - knowing full well there will be things I do not accept personally.

So, as a person, I have an image of God that is somewhat fluid and subject to change as I develop spiritually in this sometimes unspiritual world. But, as a minister and theologian, I make room for a wide diversity of thought and belief. I ernestly try to avoid professing some special, inspired knowledge of God or God's traits, likes, dislikes, etc. Ultimately, I see my job as walking alongside someone while they develop a relationship with God that will probably look quite different than mine. I try to ask questions that require further reflection and prayer on their part.

The opposite, for me, would be to assume I have special "knowledge" of God that I must convince everyone else about. If I were to do that, I would feel like I had created an idol of God, and that I and others should worship that idol of my own making.

I think that's enough for now - I'm making my head hurt.

[BenL]

What I mean is this: If I say, "all paths lead to God" or "who am I to say who God is or isn't" then how close can I really get to God? It seems to me that it's akin to trying to attach yourself to an ever-shifting nebulous "thing" instead of a person with definite features and characteristics.

I have felt God's power personally in my life, and I am one of those who believe that "all paths (can) lead to God." This may seem like a contradiction, but it doesn't erode my conviction at all.

The journey has been a long one ... most of my adult life. What took the longest for me was clearing away the rubble that blocked my path. I had so many pious notions from my upbringing that needed sweeping away, not because they were wrong in themselves but because they were preventing me from getting closer to God.

I believe that contradictory religious experiences have been part of my God-given quest. Not the least of these has been the sexuality with which I was created. Getting over the shame imposed by religious people about my sexuality had to be one of the biggest hurdles of all.

When I look back at those tests, I am amazed that I still do have a relationship with God. I credit that more to God's goodness and a personal pull this God whom I can't describe exerts on me than to any special talent I have.

One of the biggest internal barriers to this relationship was my propensity for bargaining with God, a form of "prayer" I had learned from my earliest years. When I finally stopped bombarding heaven with Ben's petitions, I could allow the deity to envelop me in a calm and loving relationship. I learned that I can't box God in with my personal descriptions of what he/she/it is or is not.

And all along the road have been wonderful people who have guided me, often without them being aware of what they were doing. A wise word here, a kind act there, have opened my being to love and grace. Not to mention a wonderful lifelong partner who loves me unconditionally and models God's love for me daily.

Cathy, I'm not answering your question very well. I don't have the formal theological training that some others on the Soulforce forums have. I see my life and my faith in a mystical light that is very difficult to put into words. I believe I'm a likeness of God, a dim one waiting to come into perfection, where I will reflect that image fully and clearly.

I have had long periods when God did not seem present to me at all, and when I thought I didn't believe. But God never gave up on me, and I found my way back to my path again. The pull God exerts on me seems faint at times and overpowering at other times. I eat, I sleep, I work, I pray ... all in a very ordinary, almost boring, life. Through it all I am aware of a divine presence that I cannot capture or dissect in a systematic way. I can only try to describe my own experience. I respect and even revere others' experiences that are much different from mine. If God is indeed all-powerful, certainly God is not limited in the ways in which s/he can approach and relate intimately with creation.

I probably haven't helped you with your question at all, but I thank you for the opportunity to express this in my own words.

BenL

[frankandcathy]

Thank all of you so much for sharing your views and theology. Andy, you're my new hero. So much history...so little time! Very good stuff.

I think at this point I am willing to accept the designation of "weak" or "needing an absolute" in my relationship with God. After all, He shows himself great in my weakness, right? ;)

What I mean to say is that it may be that I just (like a toddler) need something substantial to cling to while others are perfectly happy floating around the "father ship" and just touching base once in a while with the "known." I'm not sure. I just find EXTREME comfort in knowing concrete things about God (and life in general).

It is very hard for me to understand how others can function well in a different way. Hmmm...

BTW, I once posted a new thread that I can't find at all. It was about my lesbian exterminator and inviting her to church. What gives? Anybody know?

Okay, I'm going to bed. Again, thank you all for your openness and thought-provoking answers!

Merry Christmas!
~C

[scott snedeker]

I see each person's concept of God as a model simplified to be usable by a limited intellect that is incapable of understanding the infinite universe. There are many preconceived models to choose from, each with symbols (crucifix for example).

Pertinent to me are models I see in biology. I am more biologist than anything. Whatever seems to make an organism thrive is good for it (me). What ever causes pain (Psychological or other) is bad.

A thought that feels good is beneficial to my spirit (Closer to God if you will). A thought that feels bad is poison to my spirit (Separating me from God)

So naturally I'm Pagan. My first best destiny is to be a child of nature living true to my nature. I sense the strongest life force in the natural world. I feel spiritually Alive most when I am deep within a forest. Which leads to a lot of camping trips.

So naturally, Pan is the symbol I choose for my model. (God of the mountain forest of Arcadia) Life is supposed to be fun! And he sure had a lot of that! And He made love to men to boot! (Gay affirming=feels very good)

I'm sure playfulness brings me closer to God because it feels good. Why shouldn't a symbol of the order of the universe be a playful satyr dancing on goat hooves and playing pipes in the forest?

249

Scotty:cowboy:

[keltic63]

BTW, I once posted a new thread that I can't find at all. It was about my lesbian exterminator and inviting her to church. What gives? Anybody know?



http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=16382&postcount=13

[andrewlittle]

I think at this point I am willing to accept the designation of "weak" or "needing an absolute" in my relationship with God. After all, He shows himself great in my weakness, right? ;)

What I mean to say is that it may be that I just (like a toddler) need something substantial to cling to while others are perfectly happy floating around the "father ship" and just touching base once in a while with the "known." I'm not sure. I just find EXTREME comfort in knowing concrete things about God (and life in general).

It is very hard for me to understand how others can function well in a different way. Hmmm...

"Needing an absolute" and "weak" are, I think, two completely different things. I even have trouble with the "toddler" image, unless we consider all people as toddlers in the process of developing towards an adulthood in and with God.

People are different - it's one of the wonders of the world God created. People are different and, yet, we can each love others.

People need structure in various doses - some a great deal, some very little. Despite your need for something approaching absolutes, Cathy, I hear a voice that grapples with who you are in relationship with others and with God. That doesn't sound fixed or immature to me.

I'm going back to "both/and" as opposed to "either/or". Just as some of us are mathematically inclined, others are artistic or creative in other ways. Language, analytical, listening, sculpting, painting, scientific ... these and many more are all skills people possess in widely varying quantities. If these are all reflective of images of God, which I think they are, then God understands and relates to each in ways that each can comprehend and embrace. I think this is what is meant by God being a personal God - its about relationship.

God is bigger then any doctrine, dogma, rule or tradition that humans create. God may inspire any or all of them, but none represent the fullness of God. They do, however, in wildly different ways, communicate various understandings of God that, I think, are equally valid - even if I have trouble getting my head around some of them.

Because God is broader, deeper and wider than any one of us can comprehend, this should, I believe, deter us from universalizing or normalizing our own image of God. What I believe is not what all people should believe. If I take myself too seriously or, worse yet, believe I have the "one true image" of God, then I actually try to force God into a finite box and can severely limit the spiritual growth of other people. Humility requires that we recognize our own limitations in conceiving of the totallity of God.

So, while God is personal, God is never private. (Quoted from an unremembered source.) God is not my private possession that allows me to limit beliefs and regulate the faith of others.

I do not hear a voice from you, Cathy, that sounds like a fixed, unreflective, immature theology. I do hear a voice that openly talks about how you image God, but that tries to be open to understanding other images. Your spiritual growth does not require that you accept or integrate these other images.

I once heard that theology - which really means, by the way, God-talk or God-thought - is like a chicken. For some the only edible meat is the breast, for others it's thighs and legs, and for some others its all of the above. We then eat what we believe is food, and discard what we view as waste. We must remember, however, that in some places the parts some of us throw away are considered the most succulent portions.

No matter how much I can appreciate that to be true, I'm still not inclined to eat chicken feet, necks, gizzards, and entrails myself. The battle is in avoiding saying, "They eat the wrong parts of the chicken."

Okay, now I'm hungry.

P.S. I will be visiting my kids in Ohio over the next week. I'll check in when I can, but will probably play catchup when I get back. I hope there are some posts that are real "meaty" when I do.

Merry Christmas, one and all, and a Happy New Year.

[Dash]

Interesting that you should ask this question, Cathy. I've been thinking this week about something that Maritudas said in his thread, "Some thoughts over the weekend."

...religon is a personal journey...

My Christian background, too, instilled in me a conviction that God is a "personal" God and that we are called into a relationship with the Divine--a "personal" relationship, with a "personal" God.

Now, I'm not the most sociable person, it's true:rolleyes: ...nonetheless those relationships that I have formed in my time on this earth are each rich with a uniqueness and depth that makes them precious and unrepeatable. Not only is it impossible to duplicate a previous relationship with another person, but I think it is rather rare for any two people to have the same relationship with a third. Each individual brings a completely different dynamic to a relationship. Thus each relationship is a unique equation yielding a unique result.

I was thinking it surely must follow that whatever we understand the Divine to be, each personal relationship will be different.:inspector:

I suppose I'm already belaboring the point, but bear with me. Among my three brothers, not one of us sees or experiences even our mother in the same way. Each of her sons is very different and the relationship--that thing that is created when two people come together--is completely unique. If this is the way it is between persons that are sharply limited in capacity and breadth, do we imagine that each individual among some 6 billion must have the same relationship with the Divine, Who encompasses and exceeds all that is or can be imagined? Or again, is it reasonable to expect that the Divine One's relationship with people of different cultures will manifest the same qualities or features?

People argue over what God is like, forgetting that two humans probably couldn't even agree about the personal qualities of a third. Shall we expect 6 billion people to all see God the same way? Is it not wiser to allow a personal God to make each relationship personal? Surely it is better to allow our Friend the opportunity to reveal different aspects to others, rather than jealously expecting shiny, shrink-wrapped, mass-produced friendships--each exactly the same, guaranteed, or your money back?

:smurf:

[Pablo Rafael]

Cathy,

Thanks for bringing up the discussion. This brings to mind a project I did for a college class about "Values Education". I researched how it was used in elementary and middle school around the US.

Those of us in Christian Education use the Bible as a basis for values. Those who don't use the Bible teach that values are what are important to you. - One must define what one believes and come up with a personal value system. It seemed to me (and I realize I am biased here) that if anyone comes up with her/his own system, then there really aren't values at all. There has to be an agreed upon standard. Otherwise what do you do when values of one person conflict with those of another.

The same with one's belief system. I believe that there is right and wrong, truth and error. God has chosen to reveal himself to us through natural knowledge and revealed knowledge (the Bible). Either the Bible is the word of God or it is not.

That is not to say that everyone's understanding will be the same. I believe that God is so much greater than we can understand. We can only get a partial picture of God. Dash, you mentioned that each of the brothers in your family sees your mother in a different way and has a different relationship with her. That is a good analogy. Using the same analogy; how your siblings see your mother does not change her. She is the same regardless of how she is perceived. I think that is the way in our faith. We all see differently, but God is not different.

The problem I see with many people is that they devise a God or a philosophy that suits their own purpose. "I will believe the parts of the Bible that I want to." I have a hard time with this. I recently read the book Here I Stand by Episcopal bishop Shelby Spong. (No offense intended. He is a fine man who has a brilliant mind.) However, his philosophy is that the Bible can be used as a guide or an inspiration, but one's beliefs comes from one's own reasoning. It seems to me that this thinking leads to a person really believing in nothing.

I know that there has been discussion on the topic. "Is the Bible more important than a relationship with God." Certainly I do not think that the Bible is to be worshiped. It is a key part OF my relationship with God. It is how God has communicated his message of salvation to me. I don't trust in my intellect; it is not infallible. I trust in God's word and His message of salvation by Grace through Faith. Is my faith changing? Certainly! I desire to grow closer to God as years go by. Is God changing? No. I believe in the absolute correctness of the word of God. Now do I believe that people always interperet the word of God correctly? Most assuredly not....but that is a discussion for a different thread. (And one already discussed at length.)

Tu Amigo, Pablo
y Feliz Navidad

[Dash]

Dash, you mentioned that each of the brothers in your family sees your mother in a different way and has a different relationship with her. That is a good analogy. Using the same analogy; how your siblings see your mother does not change her. She is the same regardless of how she is perceived. I think that is the way in our faith. We all see differently, but God is not different.

Absolutely! Just as long as you are not saying, "Only one son can understands his mother fully, and the other two sons who see her diferently are sadly misguided in their personal relationship with their parent."

No, she does not change...but only one person (and perhaps a Divine Other) experiences herself as she is in the fullness of her manifestation in this world. For the rest, we see only in part.

However, his philosophy is that the Bible can be used as a guide or an inspiration, but one's beliefs comes from one's own reasoning. It seems to me that this thinking leads to a person really believing in nothing.

mmmm....can I just say, "Hogwash?" :lol: :rolleyes: :love:

Sorry...sweeping, generalization that dismisses all perspectives but the one you have reasoned out...

Denied.... I hope that you will reconsider.

[tpdncr4christ]

God is. Just establishing the fact that He or She or the Devine It! is there is the first step. God is.

God is what? That's the next step. I have this strange inkling that God is the same thing to everyone, but no one can describe Him in the same way. For the purpose of discussion, lets relate this world to a two-dementional doodle on a piece of notebook paper. God is the doodler. We are the doodles. As a doodle on the page, you can only see so much, you could see a few lines of ink running up and down, and recognize that to be your friend. God sees more than a few 2d lines. He sees you and your friend in such a more true and more comprehensive way because He exists within that third demention. So your question was: God is what? God is the doodler. We as doodles can't really affect much else on the page, nor can we describe the world beyond the page because it is so different from us. We all know who He is, we just don't yet have the tools to describe Him.

The next step is understanding our view of God. God is what, why? We, as doodles, like to agree with other doodles about the doodler. We like to stick to our 2d view of our peice of paper, and then agree with the other doodles on the page. It is very difficult to accept that we can't see the doodler. Most of us doodles think we are smart enough to say that the doodler is something. Let us say, again for sake of discussion, that Love to a doodle looks like two dashes and a line, and intellegence is a dot, a line, and a dash, and sadness is just a dot. Some doodles say that the doodler is two dashes and a line. Other doodles think the doodler is a dot, a line, and a dash. No one thinks the doodler is just a dot. But the thing about the doodler is, He is flesh. He is 3d. No doodle, no matter how smart, nor how wise, nor how stubborn can describe the doodler. Now of course, that doesn't mean that the doodler isn't two dashes and a line, or a dot, a line, and a dash, it simply means we as doodles can't describe the doodler with our doodle terms, because the doodler uses a whole knew world of different terms to describe Himself. God is what? God is the doodler. Why? We can't describe Him with our doodling terms.

Finaly, you must realize that we are just lines on a page. We are all from the same doodler, and with the same ink. We are all different. You have a 2d form, one which cannot describe the doodler. Your person is no different from the CC's, nor the doodles who think the doodler is a dot, a line, and a dash, or two dashes and a line. We are all doodles, just lines on a page, so no one is more right than the other. And if you let another doodle get you down because that doodle can describe the doodler "better" than you, you should look to the doodler, pray. And the doodler will tell you what you need to hear.

So next time this question crosses your mind, or someone describes God in a better way than you and that gets you down, I want you to think: "Silly doodle, you are just a line on a page, and though I two dashes and a line you, you are not really a dot, a line, and a dash enough to describe the doodler. Don't be just a dot, just try to two dashes and a line the doodler, and I will try and two dashes and a line you." Translation: Silly person, you are just a person, and though I love you, you are not really intellegent enough to describe God. Don't be sad, just try to love the God and I will try to love you.

:love::magic::love:

I think I just summed up what everyone else was saying...

[BruceChris]

Most of us believe, in our own way that God is omnipotent, omniscient and exists in all parts of time and space, and yet somehow allows us free will. In the next few minutes, I can choose to do something loving, something evil, or something silly.

Most of us believe that She (I'm gonna give Her some equal time, here) may know what I am going to do, but that She is not forcing me to do it, and that I am not pre-destined to do it. (Thank you, David) This may be a logical non-sequitur to most of us, but without that set of rules, God would be the origin of all sin, not us. And I think that we would then be much too boring for Her to keep around.

But back to the question. If a religious group have one image of God, that image may become fossilized, until it is harder than diamond. A *graven*image, by definition, can only have one form, one image, we cannot change it, and we cannot make it Perfect. All truth, all knowledge, and all sense of good and evil will be forcibly distorted to fit this one image, no matter who it hurts, and how much damage it causes. (Many suggest that this has been done with the Bible, but those are other threads) And if you and I fully realized that the other had an absolute but different image, we might be tempted to try to kill each other.

Now the second commandment says we shall not make a graven, that is, a fixed and rigid image, but it doesn't say that we can not have an image of some kind. If I didn't have any image of God, I could not worship Her, and I suspect that that is true of all of us.

I like to think that God is kinda like an elephant, and we are the six blind men. Any image that we have can be true, but NONE of them will be complete. I chose to believe that everyone should have Several images of God, and choose the one that works best for us at the moment. And make sure to pray humbly about THAT regularly.

Maybe someone should start a separate thread, and ask everyone to tell us all of the images of Her-Him that we have ever had. Now THAT would be an eye opener!

O.K., I gave up the idea of a stern old man with a long gray beard, dressed in long flowing robes, standing on the top of a mountain, seeing everything, and throwing lightening bolts at us when we least expect it, a long time ago. But if my relationship with God, or Jesus, seems to be getting a little too rigid, or stuffy, or uninspiring even, it's time to change something.

Now Jesus was fully devine, but also fully human. I would like to think of Jesus/Him, or God/Her, as someone I could buy a beer for, share a joke with, and ride a Harley with. As well as worship and learn from. I mean, I don't have to do that ALL of the time. (Yeah, there's a club out there called the Jesus Riders, and I'm sure that some of them have thought of that a LONG time ago)

What do you think, Andrew and Cathy?

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[frankandcathy]

Bruce, you're still freaking me out with the "her" thing! Yes, yes I remember the previous thread but man that just creeps me out! Sheesh! :lol:

Seriously, this is a great thread and I think all of the answers are unique and insightful.

Good reminders for me, Andy. I tend to be WAY too hard on myself.

Dash, I liked your analogy of your mom so much! And Pablo, I really liked your response. I think God IS best understood as a father figure and those points of view VERY well represented that relationship.

Tapdancer, I also liked your doodle illustration. I think the hard thing to realize is that if the "other doodles" don't agree with you, it doesn't make you any less valid or loved. It certainly doesn't make you less loved by the "doodler." Maybe the problem comes in when we feel less loved or ousted by the other "doodles."

keltic: Duh! It wasn't a new thread. Thank you so much. Why the heck didn't I just search for "exterminator?"

Different note: I had an interesting moment this week that gave me some insight into my personality/behavior. My sister has been staying the night with us the past few days in preparation for Christmas. My d/h is out of town so last night she asked if she could sleep in my bed with me. I immediately said, "NO! Please sleep in the guest bedroom." (I had an emotionally exhausting day Sunday and needed some alone time.) Anyway, she said, "Okay, I'll sleep in the guest room." I immediately started apologizing. My sister (who is 3 years younger but often so much more mature) said, "Why are you apologizing? It's okay if you don't want me to do that." I realized in that moment that there are some "people pleasing" issues going on. I also realized that I grew up so used to an environment of control (others trying to control) that I EXPECT people to get mad if I don't do what they want. How good it is to be around healthy people who accept the boundaries of others. How does this relate? Maybe that's where all the difficulty comes in for me trying to relate to others who believe differently from me. I don not have to CONTROL someone's thoughts for them to continue loving me or make them agree with me for me to continue loving them! Good stuff.

My baby has an earache so I should go get some sleep in case she needs some Mommy cuddles tonight.

Goodnight and hope you had a lovely Christmas!
~C

[RainbowL'elly]

giving up on a set and structured view of Divinity actually gave me a better understanding of the Divine- yes, it is a fluid understanding, but it also allows me to be in touch with Divinity more easily than when i was still set in the old-man-with-beard michelangellian view of God.

i can tap more easily into that otherworldy stream of enerty that flows in and around and through everything- our common Great Spirit, if you will. it is so much easier for me to slip medatatively into that stream since i stopped seeing the Divine in a human form.

I like to think that God is kinda like an elephant, and we are the six blind men. Any image that we have can be true, but NONE of them will be complete. I chose to believe that everyone should have Several images of God, and choose the one that works best for us at the moment. And make sure to pray humbly about THAT regularly.

i love this analogy- i've heard it before and it makes perfect sense to me. it also makes perfect sense to me to call the Divine both a he and a she- or a ze. the Divine has no set sexuality in my faith.

i also take a different stance on the 'in the image of God' phrase- it's not literal, to me, as in 'God looks like....' because for centuries that was used to keep people of differing skin colours in inferior positions in society- they couldn't be equal to the white person because only the white person was made in God's image, therefore they are animals and we can do whatever we want with them- that simple phrase was the justification for slavery, murder, and conquest for hundreds of years. i believe that the 'image of God' is one of a Creator and of Love. we are creating beings- as the Divine created this world, we create art, homes, clothing, cities, instruments, music, etc- forms of expression and of our desire to be able to say 'it is good'. i also believe that the Divine would not have created us if the Divine did not want to Love and be Loved, therefore when we do the same we are expressing the image of the Divine.

when it comes to the Divine as a 'her', take a read from the original script to Dogma- serendipity (the muse turned stripper) had a wonderful monologue that was cut from the script before shooting. it's a bit of a long quote, but take a look-see and forgive the writer's in their sometimes crude phraseology- check it out for the message, not for the direct words used, eh?


BETHANY
You're saying God's a woman.

SERENDIPITY
Was there ever a doubt in your mind?

BETHANY
The possibility never presented itself. He's always referred to as a Him.

SERENDIPITY
I didn't write it that way My job stops at the idea stage. The person that
holds the pen adds their own perspective, and all the pen-holders were men.
One of the drawbacks to being intangible is that you have no say in the
editorial process.

RUFUS
Another one's that you can't jerk off.

SERENDIPITY
(to Bethany)
See. these being male-dominated times, the Pharisees and High Priests felt
threatened by the idea of a woman lording over them and controlling their
fates. so they made sure that She became a He Doesn't stop with God - the
whole book is slanted and gender-biased: a woman's responsible for the
first sin, the fall of man, and the expulsion from Eden. a woman cuts
Sampson's coif of power, a woman asks for the head of John the Baptist.
Read that book again some time - women are painted as bigger antagonists
than the fucking Egyptians and Romans combined.

BETHANY
(stunned)
God is a woman...

SERENDIPITY
I don't know what the big surprise is - women are the only gender that can
create life, just like God created the universe. Who else but a mother
could have the infinite patience with impudent children that God has with
humanity. A woman can give birth to and nurture both sexes, so
psychologists theorize that women are the only gender both sexes can feel
completely comfortable with; and the faithful - both male and female - feel
at ease with God. In time of trial, our first instinct is to implore the
aid of the Almighty, just as when you're a child, the only person who can
make it all better is...

BETHANY
...mom. God, it makes sense.

RUFUS
(to Serendipity)
Shit, you still have a knack for words.

SERENDIPITY
Not really useful in my new line of work.

RUFUS
What about that? Why'd you choose stripping?

SERENDIPITY
In an effort to create something artistic that I could claim as my own.
See, I've been able to fool myself into thinking this isn't stripping, it's
dancing; and at least dancing is artistic. But She won't even give me that
much - the way God designed dance, it's the only creative act which results
in no tangible product. Unlike paintings, poems, movies or most other arts
forms. when the dance is over, there's nothing to show for it - nothing to
save and enjoy... or sell.
(takes a drink)
Believe me, the irony wasn't lost on this muse.

[Deb]

I hope that's making sense. I guess what I'm wondering is: for those who find it difficult to nail down anything about God except that "God is love," does that hinder having an intimate relationship with Him?


My concept is that God is the one who brings it all about. He frist loved me, so I can love Him.. He called me, so I can answer... It is my understanding that Jesus is the revalator. we know God by and through the person of Jesus Christ. I've come to believe that very little of what happens in my life, in this world or my understanding of God has to do with who I am. I am not the I Am. Many times I see mankind spiritualized and God humanized. That makes everything hard to understand.

[dewdrop_world]

Hi all,

Very interesting and crucial topic. Sorry I've been too busy to get into it until now.

My thoughts about God depend on a couple of propositions that I would call axioms (in the sense of basic truths that cannot be proven but which are self evident to some degree, like 1+2 = 2+1).

1. No individual comprehends the full majesty of God; everyone's view is partial.

2. Different people can have different spiritual needs.

Other thoughts, which I won't try to present in any logical order, follow from these:

- People can disagree vehemently about the nature of God and both be right.

- What yardstick can we use to measure which views of God are better or worse? (The Bible offers a profound hint, in my opinion: "by their fruits shall you know them.")

- If people have different spiritual needs at various times of their lives, suppose that God reveals herself to people in the way that they need -- in a way that a given person will be able to respond to and which will transform that person.

(Like BruceChris, I'm not really fond of assigning a gender to God. But for this post, I'll use "she" just to be mischievous.)

- The last point raises the problem of a person who believes fervently in God, but who is not becoming a child of God. My feeling about this is that God is present to everyone all the time, in the form that they need, but many are unable or unwilling to hear and see.

Opening your heart to God is not all peace and light at first. At times it's intensely painful; refusing to see God's presence in your life, preferring a self-made, comforting image, allows you to avoid the pain in the short term, but it is at best a compromise. (I think this is what Jesus meant by "lukewarm," and the fact that fundamentalists use that passage to denounce people who don't define the spiritual life in the same terms they use is a corruption of scripture, in the sense of substituting a shallow, ego gratifying interpretation in place of a more profound truth.)

- So in the end, it isn't necessary for everyone to have a personal relationship with a personal(ized) God. If someone grows in spirit through belief in a personal God, I take it to mean that a personal God is what that person needs. For myself, I didn't begin to grow in spirit until I discovered contemplative practice (meditation), emptying the mind of concepts, including concepts about God, being still and resting in the palm of God's hand. A personal God simply didn't work for me, and I have to conclude that God did not reveal herself to me as a personal entity.

Some of this touches obliquely on Pablo's comment:

The problem I see with many people is that they devise a God or a philosophy that suits their own purpose. "I will believe the parts of the Bible that I want to." I have a hard time with this. I recently read the book Here I Stand by Episcopal bishop Shelby Spong. (No offense intended. He is a fine man who has a brilliant mind.) However, his philosophy is that the Bible can be used as a guide or an inspiration, but one's beliefs comes from one's own reasoning. It seems to me that this thinking leads to a person really believing in nothing.

My question for this view is, is there anybody who does not "devise a God or a philosophy that suits their own purpose"? It's obvious to me that most of the people who criticize others for "believ the parts of the Bible that [they] want to" are themselves guilty of the same charge. Can anyone honestly claim that their beliefs are not in any way grounded in their own reasoning -- while, of course, other people's beliefs are inadequate for being so grounded?

I reflected on another board about [I]the difference between belief and faith. Belief is cognitive and is relatively easy. (I think [and I'm aware of the irony] that the Buddhists are right to point out one of the side effects of thought is to maintain the illusion of the separate, individuated self. As one thought passes away and gives rise to another, the mind stays in control and believes that it is all there is. For Descartes, "I think, therefore I am" was a triumph of philosophy; for Buddhism, this is the most succinct resume of the human tragedy, because "I am" is exactly the problem!)

Faith transcends belief. If belief is easy, faith is hard. Belief demands little and rewards the ego; faith strips away the ego and requires the ultimate sacrifice. In faith, it isn't so important whose beliefs are right. What matters is the presence of God in a person's life. (And, I think it also follows from the axioms that no one is qualified to judge whether that presence is real in another without understanding that person deeply.)

If a person believes in nothing, it could be a sign of nihilism but it could also be a sign of the kind of faith that no longer needs to believe in this or that idea.

James

[Daniel]

If a person believes in nothing, it could be a sign of nihilism but it could also be a sign of the kind of faith that no longer needs to believe in this or that idea.

I've been reading this thread and have hesitated to put my thoughts on paper, but am thankful that James has posted a good deal of what I would like to say on the matter.

My first memories of anything having to do with God were related to that now infamous picture of Christ that hung in the basement of the church I grew up in.

(http://www.calvin.edu/news/releases/2002_03/devotional_art.htm)

It seemed odd to me- and yes- oddly attractive- for reasons I didn't comprehend at the time. :rolleyes: I must have been 6 or 7 years old. Why, I wondered, did God look like that? Even at that age, the idea of God that made the most sense to me was one that posited that whatever God was, he couldn't be contained or even explained. No image made sense. Especially that one!

In retrospect, I don't think I've wandered too far from this thought. Yes- some things got added on over the years- and those very same things fell off the side of my head, a result, I should say, of contemplative practice. Like James has intimated: it moves the furniture in your mind.

One thing that expanded on my initial 'understanding' was making (writing as they say) an icon and the whole idea of icons in general. One learns to look through or past them- not at them actually. They are doorways to perception and took me to a deeper level of inquiry: "What does the image or experience I am having point to? Is that an 'image' itself? What, after all, is Real?"

I guess you could say I've learned to live with more questions than answers. And while that may look like believing in nothing to others, the actual experience is altogether different.

[tdogg]

God cannot be contained within the confines of a book. Our human brains are not used to their full capacity and cannot fully comprehend the totality of God. In that context, the significance of whether God is male or female is non-existent - God IS. According to the Bible, God is He/Him; however, we must understand that the Bible was written generally by men (VERY LITTLE was written by females), and as women were considered mere property by men during Biblical times (old and new testament periods), of course those words are going to call God He/Him. There is no way anyone in that period of time would have had their words accepted by calling God anything other than male. Hmmm, it all goes back to that Biblical inerrancy stuff..... :cool:

I like to think of God as just God, I don't have to visualize a male or female. It certainly doesn't bother me when someone else talks about God in the feminine, masculine or no-ine. Perhaps more than nothing, God is everything, all-things. Feminine, masculine, human, animal, mineral, water, rock, air......

[BronzDragon]

Hey all. I have been thinking lately about how it seems wrong to many folks to say, "I know that this is who God is." Or maybe it's grating to some to say, "I can say with certainty that this is who God is...and I think you're wrong about who YOU think He is."


» Thom says: ☛ The only thing we really can do is define our relationship with the Eternal One. After all, if the Eternal One is truly Eternal, how can temporal beings understand how one could be everywhere, every-when, and everything, all at once? Can a cup of water understand the Oceans? At best we are limited to our relationships; And I think that needs some care, because we can sometimes confuse the image … err … definition for the subject being defined.

[erubre]

I believe that God is a Spirit Who always existed without beginning or end.
God brought everything that is into being. God is everywhere and is in every person. The Nature and Character of God is Unconditional Love, and God Loves every person Universally and Unconditionally. I base this belief on everything I have known and experience which includes what is written in the Bible, but also personal experience and what I feel as spiritual revelation. To paraphrase something I have heard said - for there to be a God God would need to be at least as good as the best human who there could ever be. The God I know Loves everyone Universally and Unconditionally, Is kind and gentle and tolerant. No one can fall out of favor with God for any reason and no one can ever be separated from God. God is accepting of every person.
The one absolute pertaining to God is - Universal and Unconditional Love. And all Attributes of God are in accord with and are consistant with Kindness, Gentleness' Comforting and Caring, Peace, and like Attributes. In God there is no prejudice nor is there discrimination , bigotry , hatred, or intolerance.
When things occur in our lives that are helpful and productive and enriching - those things are from God with Whom there are no coincidences.
I would suggest that everyone needs a strong faith belief system. It is not necessary to be able to prove anything to anyone else, it is enough that we believe it ourselves. All beliefs, but one, can be relative and be subject to change or adjustment with the revelation of new experience and new truth. We can strenghten our faith by prayng for strength to believe what we feel meets are needs. Again the one absolute is the Nature and Character of God which is Universal and Unconditional Love.

[BronzDragon]

» Thom says: ☛ Just thinking, here:

Does Elohym really dwell with humanity on the Earth?
Even the Heaven of heavens cannot contain You;
how much less this house that I have built!
Chronicles ii, 6.18

He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know.
Lao-tzu, Tao Tê Ching, 56

The Name by which we call God can in no way express His true essence.
Nevertheless, in His kindness to man, He allows us to glimpse some of His properties and express them in a Name.
ArtScroll Siddur