God as Other or God as All?
Lots of interesting comments last thread. Thought I’d abridge a couple of them as a good way to approach the subject of two different ideas of what God is.
Pauline at Writing Down the Words http://prophetswords.blogspot.com/ wrote:
"Sometimes I think I want to believe in a God but . . . my mind simply cannot accept the idea of a deity."
Don at Poetic Alchemist http://poeticalchemist.wordpress.com/ wrote:
"God is all . . . If we see ourselves as separate from God, then we face the alignment problem; is our choice consistent with the will of God? If we see ourselves one with God, the alignment problem disappears."
What Pauline cites as not making sense to her is the idea of God as Other: the existence of a Creator distinct from creation, a supernatural divine Entity. Don speaks to another perspective on God: God as comprising being or reality itself. From this perspective, certain contradictions/paradoxes that come with viewing God as Other don’t arise.
I’ve deliberately framed Original Faith (the book) in terms that allow readers to hold either of these perspectives or an alternative belief system – or a non-belief system, including atheism and agnosticism. The book sets aside matters of belief to focus on direct experience, identity transformation, and our potential to lead lives that contribute to the larger world in our own ways.
From what I can see, the things we hold in common are of potentially greater significance than the differences in our belief systems – if enough of us were to awaken to them.
Pauline at Writing Down the Words http://prophetswords.blogspot.com/ wrote:
"Sometimes I think I want to believe in a God but . . . my mind simply cannot accept the idea of a deity."
Don at Poetic Alchemist http://poeticalchemist.wordpress.com/ wrote:
"God is all . . . If we see ourselves as separate from God, then we face the alignment problem; is our choice consistent with the will of God? If we see ourselves one with God, the alignment problem disappears."
What Pauline cites as not making sense to her is the idea of God as Other: the existence of a Creator distinct from creation, a supernatural divine Entity. Don speaks to another perspective on God: God as comprising being or reality itself. From this perspective, certain contradictions/paradoxes that come with viewing God as Other don’t arise.
I’ve deliberately framed Original Faith (the book) in terms that allow readers to hold either of these perspectives or an alternative belief system – or a non-belief system, including atheism and agnosticism. The book sets aside matters of belief to focus on direct experience, identity transformation, and our potential to lead lives that contribute to the larger world in our own ways.
From what I can see, the things we hold in common are of potentially greater significance than the differences in our belief systems – if enough of us were to awaken to them.
Posted by Paul at 12:13 AM Permalink
25 Comments:
All I have to do is align myself with that, for I am in symbiosis with all that is.
From this comes all morality.
The problem with "beliefs" is that they are framed in the intellect, which is the closest thing in the Universe to a devil, for it can construct ideas which go contrary to the good of the Whole, or some part of it. Good is what favours the All.
Any system of morality, religion or man-made order perverts good, for it establishes rules which override Nature.
But I will settle for God as All and cast my vote with Don.
It also points to something that's been somewhat frustrating from a "marketing" standpoint on my book: obviously it has to be primarily oriented toward people with an interest in religion and spirituality. But I'm no less interested in how people who consider themselves atheists will react to it.
But you just can't target a book that's about subjects that are usually spoken of in a belief context to non believers! They'll assume, just from the topics, that it entails beliefs.
The book is actually belief-neutral. That is, it neither endorses any system of belief nor rejects any. That's just not what the book's about.
I'm pretty sure - actually, I already know, from people who've read the manuscript - that it does fly with both believers and non believers. For people who see themselves as religious, it has something to contribute to their awareness of the experiential dimension of faith and spirituality. For atheists, I think the book has a lot of surprises.
Thanks, both of you, for "hanging in" with me long enough to see that the manner in which I approach my subject doesn't argue with your outlook on belief.
There is a big audience for this kind of book - did you see that article from the past at Beliefnet - Spiritual but not religions.
Here they are downtrodden and out of sorts and suddenly they manage to find THE SECRET OF THE UNIVERSE. Not only that but now they can play with Rattlesnakes! How cool is that?
OK. I'll tone it down.
The Meaning of Life is what every...
OK almost every...
human mind craves. A nice. catalogued set of information, rules, and regulations, is beyond estimation in value. How do YOU spell relief?
People quite naturally gravitate towards a coda that has been around for Millenia..afterall, it must be true.
The other end of the spectrum is that those of us who don't adhere to the Easy Bake cOVENant, and I've tried both, appreciate having a moral governor on those who have impulse control issues.
To borrow a line from Chariots of Fire, when I THINK, I feel HIS pleasure.
Your book sounds fascinating, and would have been helpful last semester when I was writing a lit. review on Harris's The End of Faith!
There’s an audience for the subject matter all right. The problems for an author without a platform are distribution and marketing.
HOMO ESCAPEONS: Belief in God as a Deity probably has a large number of functions. While you’d expect some overlap, it would make sense to also expect a lot of variation in the functions that this belief serves among individuals and groups.
Geesh, I sound like a sociologist. No offense sociologists, but I HATED the sociology course I took as an undergrad. Hopefully it’s gotten better since then…
Anyway, as long as I don’t feel like writing a wordy treatise (oops – sorry sociologists…) I’ll just say that you’ve pointed to some of these functions but that the complete catalog would include positive ones too.
To me, critical thought, which we both admire, is just being honest. And you could call that a “spiritual quality” or even a “moral virtue!”
(Sociologist Lurkers: Seriously, I only had the one course so no aspersions intended. I think that most sociologists wouldn’t have liked that particular course either. The professor was really… not good.)
ETC, thanks. How we think about faith may change; faith doesn’t end. That’s what I’d want to say to Harris, just going by his title.
I don’t know exactly what Vincent meant by that either. For me, it suggests possibly the distinction between beliefs that are over-intellectualized in the sense that they aren’t grounded in anything real experientially and beliefs that are. I had to read a lot of theology in div school. While I appreciated some of it, for me a great deal of it was playing around with language and logic.
ttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3582480414196056972&hl=en
Thank you for taking us into your question: "God as Other or God as All?"
Hearing the experiences of others in their own words makes it more perspicuous.
In my thoughts God is All, as Dan said. God is unchangeable and always present.
Sometimes the mountains are hidden from view but I never doubt they are there, behind the clouds. In the same way, I see God's present.
Your music analogy reminds me of Tillich.
DR SU: Thanks, and good to see you. Hope others get to view your link - my "technical difficulties" of the disabled sort unfortunately make it hard to deal with audio/video.
KRYSTYNA, your mountains analogy reminds me of Hazzbuzz's music analogy above. Sounds like you may view God as closely related to creation but not exactly identical with it.
Now I know that I come across as the bull in the Papal gift shop but in real life I am quite accomodating and pleasant.
This nice couple, properly adorned in grey, understand that I am unavailable for proselyzation, but more than happy to help them sharpen their 'talking points'.
We joked around a little and I actually apologised for forgetting that this IS their life and their beliefs are as real to them as gravity holding them on my porch.
Even if I choose to view their theology as absolutely ludricrous and riddled with more holes than a slice of swiss cheese, they have the right to believe whatever they want.
What they don't have is the mandate to try to ruin any other lives, especially those in need of a dose of reality or a blood transfusion.
However I could see that they were resolute and determined to continue their missionary work and that they are as opposed to opening their eyes as I am to closing mine.
Certain aspects of scientific reason, historical evidence, and common sense, must remain irrelevent to them in order to stay the course. In fact, it is probably a full time job avoiding those enemies of 'blind' faith. It's just the Devil trying to confuse them!
So in the end, it all comes down to deciding what and who, you want and need, your version of GOD to be. I need to remember how important it is to people and today I was chastised.
Point taken.
Play drums?
Well, now that I've got that out of my system...
Good question! I think that there could be any number of permutations on the God is All idea according to the manner in which the All is thought to operate. All kinds of beliefs about this that could be attached -or not.
For example, belief in reincarnation or in evolution - to cite a couple beliefs with very different bases. The All might be conceived of as a preexisting higher intelligence immanent to all being and guiding it along - or as developing from the ground up, beginning simply and becoming more complex by way of the process of creation.
HOMOESCAPEONS: What you say here confirms this feeling I get with some people on the blogs that I really kind of "know" them.
In dealing face to face with actual human beings with whom you happen to disagree about this stuff, I can't picture you doing so other than respectfully and good humouredly - unless possibly the other person behaved like a complete "in your face" jerk, in which case anybody'd want to show them the door.
Your devil reference is a good example of the refusal to think that can go on in the religion and spirituality sphere. For someone who believes in the devil and wants to believe in the devil badly enough, there's absolutely nothing you can say or point to, however compelling, to show them that they might want to at least have a glimmer of doubt concerning the devil's existence. Because, of course, anything that leads them to doubt the devil's existence proves the very devil is at work. Because it's wrong not to believe in the devil and the source of evil is, well, the devil. They already "know" that. End of conversation.
It's kind of like listening to George Bush talk about Iraq. Whatever happens in Iraq, it somehow turns out to help prove that what he's doing is working.
What's next? No "Jello"? No "Double Stuffed Oreos"? No "Dividing by Zero"?
Bada bing! Hey, I'll be here all week. But seriously...
If you don't mind, I'd like to lurk for a bit and figure out just what this here blog is all about. I might pipe up a bit for clarification requests. Thanks for having me (or, if I am the future recipient of a "Thanks, but no. Shove off.", then thank you for having allowed me to stop by.
About the word God, absolutely. People mean different things by the word - just as with other key words in the religion/spirituality lexicon: for example, faith, spirituality, love... Which often creates confusion.
So this post is just trying to get people to think a bit about what they mean - or don't mean - when they use the word God.
Another paradox to be bridged and united by a clear mind, not knowing . . .
Paz y sonrisas . . .
Je parle le Francais tres mal - tres tres paradoxicale... Et aussi l'Anglais, mais pas tres mal. C'est toute.
Cette langue de vous... est'qu c'est L'Espaniole?
En Francais mon tete n'est pas tres claire certainment...
Since there are really no words in our human Wet Ware to express that which is beyond the earthly existence, we can only fumble with it and hope that those we are conversing with have enough ideas and concepts in their Wet Ware to guess at what we can not articulate. An example of that would be to try to describe the experience of meditating to someone who has never successfully meditated. I am also thinking about the three blind men and the elephant.
Paul, I agree that there is a real need and a real desire out there to investigate spirituality, however it is very difficult to market a book dealing with the subject without a large publishing house or a lot of money to throw at it. We need to continue to try regardless. I am working on either a second book or a second edition of the first book, as well as a dialog between student and teacher, knowing full well that it will reach a lot fewer people than if it were promoted big time. BUT we continue to try, it is inside and it must be said.
I have rambled on long enough. ...Z
Speaking personally, I've found that my most compelling ideas have been those that don't stray far from direct experience.
Write on, friend. It will be read.
...Z
All you can do, in any case, is your best and leave it at that - I don't see any desirable alternative in any circumstances. Or "write on, whether or not it will be read." Or with Buddhism, don't be attached to the fruits of one's labor.
Post a Comment