I have a few friends I exchange emails with about many different subjects. Some blog as I do most do not. Recently one of the email exchanges about blogging on religion ended with this last line. I liked it and decided I need to comment on this.
“I added a lot of words to keep the atheists and the contrarians at bay, or to have them join in the conversation in a civil manner.”
I sent my comments regarding this to Monte as he is another who I exchange emails with. His comments are not included but I will let him post what he wishes. Monte disagreed with Alan Watts interpretation and this from the point of a scholar of the biblical texts. What Monte said I wish for him to comment. It was close to what Alan Watts said but different enough and to me even more of what we should know of what Jesus said. It confirmed even more to my beliefs. I not only thank him for it, but hope Monte responds to this posting soon so all can read his learned thoughts.
This is the email I sent to Monte and the person who wrote the line regarding his blog. I wish to share it with all of you.
ow, those atheists and Contrarians. Contrarians are just plain discontented people with a continual case of emotional hemorrhoids. Usually with little of worth to offer.
Atheists are like those true believers who know that God is that white hair gentleman they talk to every night and guides the through life. Even if they sin on Saturday he will forgive them, no matter if it was a heinous crime that they committed. When they walk into Church on Sunday they are blessed for that few hours and then are able to go out and sin again. Like those knee jerk believers atheists are positive they know the truth. I am convinced each has deluded their selves, one with a flawed logic, the other which is equally flawed but is afraid to question as they need to feel salvation.
I truly don’t know who or what God is. I gave up years ago trying to understand just what IT could be. I say IT as I know God couldn’t be anything like a human entity let alone a sexual identity. I just came to the point of accepting that our minds work with finite limitations and that God is indefinable, impossible for our simple minds to grasp the entire concept of just what IT is. God, the word is a man given word. Each culture has given this a different word but all have some connection albeit each defines God within that context of the culture.
After all we do accept infinity, but we are unable to completely grasp the concept of it, always was and always will be. We cannot grasp the reality that there was never a beginning and will never be an end. Yes there was a beginning of mankind and there will be an end to mankind. But there was something before and there will be something after word.
I believe that IT, being God, may have created us in an image that IT, again God, saw. Thus, “in HIS own image”. I underline his as we more often define God as masculine, this because I feel those who wrote this passage were of a male dominated culture of that time, it was a way to explain life and our evolution, a metaphor and that has been forgotten that much of these ancient writings contain many metaphors. Today I feel far too many pastors and believers have turned this on its ear and now we have “God created in our OWN image”. How arrogant of a species to elevate themselves so far above the other creatures who inhabit this planet.
Our entire existence as a species would be much less than a blink in the eye of time when considered as a whole. If indeed that this God has allowed us to exist on this, perhaps one of the jewels of his planets. It is up to us to continue as stewards of HIS planet. If we fail the planet doesn’t die, we as a species do. He will allow another of his creatures to inherit this planet.
I tend to lean towards this belief. I am not an atheist nor could be. I am far too spiritual for that. However I do not find myself a believer in what had been preached in my youth. I found “God” to be a far more complex entity than what I had originally believed, far beyond my scope of understanding and I do believe I am a brighter person than average but I am humbled by all that exists.
I cannot dismiss others beliefs entirely though. I have come to the conclusion that none of us truly know. Most important, part of faith is that which comforts you. I refuse to take that away from others even if I feel they are dead wrong. Those, such as Sarah Palin, I feel are in this later mentioned group, dead wrong. But I cannot dismiss those Quakers, many Catholics and other Protestant beliefs as I am truly not sure of what is truth when it comes to Faith. I can’t dismiss other religions as well, again who am I to say I alone have the truth, the way.
I am not God, but I believe as Alan Watts once said of what he felt the more literal interpretation of Jesus’ teachings. He spoke of Jesus saying “I am a Son of God, one of the Sons of God, we are all the Sons of God, the kingdom of God is within me and it is within You”. Alan Watts came to believe that Jesus was more Eastern in his beliefs than Western. Which in his interpretation meant he was not the Son of God, the Trilogy, A GOD that many Christians believe him to be, but a Son of God and that we all have him within us. Now this more fits with what I believe and you don’t have to fully understand what IT, GOD, truly is to feel that.
This is why I loved your sermon posted recently. It spoke to me for what I believe. Am I an agnostic? Perhaps as some would define it, but, that is because I question the conventional way God is accepted and don’t accept Jesus to be God or even sitting on the throne next to God. Again Throne, a metaphor which usage in this case has become lost on many people. I do believe Jesus was a great teacher and prophet, one to emulate. As I was raised as a Christian I accept that as much of my moral code and center.
But when I look out at the stars on a clear night outside my Sierra Mountain home I look only what I can see for which I am well aware is also a speck of the entirety of this Universe that has no boundary, is never ending and had no beginning. It continually evolves and for what I see outside those nights is billions of years old and yet still young. That I accept, but it is truly beyond my finite simple mind to completely comprehend.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Mary Elizabeth Williams
Sourie de Campagne
Sirenita Lake
yekdeli
keenoctopus
Frank Apisa
Salon.com
Comments
I didn't know you were going to publish this tonight, and I appreciate you encouraging me to comment further on your thoughts which I have already known from our brainstorming through email on the subject of religion.
I will dig out what I wrote to you and clean up my act a bit (it wouldn't do to have fragile people read how pastors talk when they are just gabbing with friends! ;-) ) and get it up here as a long winded comment some time tonight.
Monte
Bruce,
Thank you for being so honest and forthcoming in discussing your faith. I honor it as I do all who walk a spiritual path, and even those who choose for whatever reason not to do so.
But actually, sad to say, your theology is far better articulated and more intelligent than that of 99% of the Christians I know. Most Christians just accept whatever they hear from the pulpit as "truth" and are therefore easily mislead not only be the false prophets of TV and mega church land, but by well meaning but basically incompetent pastors in regular churches as well.
As I have said before, the Church, in all of its denominational and non-denominational forms, has much to answer for. But, the Church will never indict itself so the accounting will have to come at some time beyond this earthly life.
I have read Alan Watts. He was a very smart and persuasive philosopher and writer. He was not a theologian. His problem is that his understanding of koine Greek was either poor or he had chosen to read the original manuscripts in a way that supported his ideas.
There is no reason to think him to have been devious or anything like that. We all have to be careful to not reinvent others' words to fit our preexisting prejudices. That is true even in folk music, isn't it? We can say that what we are doing is only doing what a prior artist did, when we know full well that we are taking that artist's music and changing its form or style to fit the changes we think improve it. But who would listen if we said that we were the one to "improve" on the beautiful work of a folk music hero? That dog wouldn't hunt.
So, bottom line, and I read koine Greek pretty well, Jesus to my knowledge never said what Mr. Watts said he said. I have read the entire New Testament dozens of times, in many English translations and in the original koine Greek. Jesus said two very important and very different things which we have yet to clearly understand.
He said first and most clearly that he was the Son of Man. And, as I recall, only in one Gospel, the latest written, did the evangelist put into his mouth that he said he was the Son of God. In other words a man said Jesus was the Son of God. I don't think Jesus likely ever did.
Such a statement by Jesus would have been exactly opposite of what Jesus was most trying to do. What he asked the disciples in the 8th chapter of Mark, the earliest written Gospel, "And you, who do YOU say that I am?" is what Jesus wanted us to answer for ourselves. Each individual is asked by Jesus to say who Jesus is. That is still true today.
Jesus persistently insisted that he would NOT tell people who he was. He did it so often in fact, and it is so frequently recorded in the NT that his reluctance is a highly studied part of New Testament studies called "The Messianic Secret." Peter answered Jesus' question, "You are the Messiah." Later that answer got expanded to where Peter is recorded to have said more: "You are the Messiah, the Son of God." I doubt that Peter actually said that.
But as the years passed and people started to ponder who this Jesus really was, long after he was dead, they came to the CONCLUSION that he was the Son of God. In other words, theological conclusions developed over the years through discussions that arose as to who Jesus must have been.
But what I am sure of is that I don’t know anyplace in the Bible were Jesus says that he was A Son of God or that we all are Sons of God, etc.
He did say something that could be confused as saying that. He is recorded to have prayed that we be in him as the Father is in him and he is in the father. And his meaning of that is later confirmed when he tells the disciples that if they believe that Jesus is in them then they will do even mightier works than he did.
Later NT writers like Paul then claim that the works that they do come not from them but from Christ who is in them. So one could argue that, if Christ is the Son of God and even, as the 4th Gospel claims, that Jesus IS God, and that Jesus, God, is IN us, then we can be viewed as bearers of the word of God which is Christ.
That sounds convoluted, and it is, but it is also a very important distinction because that way of saying it clearly distinguishes us, the creatures, from God, the creator. What powers we have stems not for us innately, but from God’s spirit dwelling inside the believer. The credit then, whatever it may be, always goes to God, not to us.
Regardless, that does not diminish your point at all. You do not need Watts to support your already solid theology. And it is solid, so don't let anyone else tell you otherwise.
And of course God is not male or female. He told the prophets he was "Spirit" and "Love." That's it. The Bible was written by men in a patriarchal society. Jesus was also a part of that society and called God "Father." I use the term because Jesus did, not because God is male.
Sometimes I will substitute she for he depending on the audience. I don't want people to stop listening to something I believe to be important I have to say because of a pronoun. I don't use the term, "It," because it sounds so impersonal and I believe in a very personal God. "It" is not wrong, but it does not convey for me the nature of the God I worship.
But the most important thing that I like about your theology is the humble willingness to know that we can NEVER know who or what God is beyond the metaphors we create for God. We are NOT WIRED to know.
People today, influenced by the scientific method, actually want to believe that we can understand, or are on the verge of understanding, the idea of and essence of God, where God came from, what was there before God, and that old canard "Who made God?"
We have no tolerance for mystery and even less for believing that we cannot know everything, even about the universe, let alone about God. That is the height of arrogance as far as I am concerned.
What it ultimately leads to is the belief, the FAITH if you will, that there is no God simply because we cannot PROVE by our primitive scientific methods that God exists. This is what I think of as the arrogance of "Flat Earth Science." It is the same hubris that condemned Galileo.
Take care,
Monte
I am sure soon Monte will be commenting on those lost scrolls.
I have had some interesting discussions over the years, come very contrary people, atheist, true absolute believers, who have challenged my beliefs. At one time rejecting Christianity outright but in more recent years come back and take a better look at religion in general. I have softened my outright rejection and began to look at religion from other perspectives and questioned myself even more.
I wouldn’t say it has led me to a new enlightenment for a new age religion but it has expanded my scope of acceptance and I now find peace where I admit I didn’t have it before. I have come to accept that I can’t know and that I am comfortable with.
I do believe you have to live a life in which you give as much if not more than you receive for being rewarded, be it in this which might be the only life, or in the afterlife, it as well is so.
What you wrote to me and now posted was and is from the trough from which truth and knowledge can spring.
For too long we have had those who will preach they are the “truth and light” and hold the knowledge for which we cannot and should not know. They drive out those who will question as they fear what may be the truth and yet none of us can truly know that truth. We are merely mankind who are limited in our ability to hold within our thoughts the true existence of the entire universe.
Around us we are surrounded by life and that we can know, touch, hear and see. That is truth and knowledge that we are able to understand. In science we continue to reveal what once was mystery only to find there is more mystery beyond that.
That is the beauty of the quest of knowledge, to know more of this universe that we inhabit. This endless quest to know will always keep mankind renewed. It is science in that endless quest, mankind with the pursuit of art that enriches our lives. Also as you mention Monte, for many faith that each of us individually define that is our keel as we sail along these open seas of life.
Yes, God cannot be proven nor disproven by science. The true concept of God or how you wish to accept it is beyond us to understand. We can never know what God is, you can only accept faith that God exists. To put God in a bottle and bring it out on the days defined as Holy as many religious leaders of many faiths do is for me blasphemy.
This doesn't mean I don't continually dig when I am seeking the truth of something, but it does give me peace in knowing that somethings I will just never be able to understand during my time on Earth. I think you did say that above. A lovely post.
Merry Christmas. :)
rated.
What's your central point? That atheists cannot offer anything? Of course, they can. Or that "it's all incomprehensible"? What's incomprehensible is unconscious. By intentionally staying on the topic you're simply "exploring" your confusion without admitting it. I don't see how such effort then can make sense, "spiritually" or otherwise. You turn yourself into psychotic, that's all.
I can understand fatigue and not wanting to comment future as that has happened for me a few times. Of course I f eel this is not a light weight thing to wade through and sort out what one may wish to comment on. Those who like me have spent a considerable number of years trying to sort out just what is acceptable logic for this alone has been a huge effort. I admit much of it I left to my subconscious to sort out so I could come back to this some of that argument within myself was beginning to sort itself out. I find my subconscious tends to be good at that. When I am ready to revisit the subject often some questions are answered while others are brought forward.
Screamin mama,
I like this quote from scripture you gave, Deuteronomy 29:29. Sometimes I think we have simplified those who wrote some of these words. It is very likely they also had put in much thought on the universe and what can be revealing is how these can fit into present day philosophy some of these can be. Today we know so much more than our ancestors did and yet we still know little of the universe. Science will always seek discovery and knowledge. There is a never ending universe out there to discover. The more we discover the more wonder for what more there is to discover. It is endless but there will always be that which is beyond our comprehension as I mentioned, we have a finite ability for logic and reasons, we are flawed creatures, much like every inhabitant of this planet.
Dustbowldiva,
Another quote, I love intelligent quotes as the get one to think. Yes Monte is another of those who get me thinking. Not a knee jerk reactionary Christian but one who has lived another life before he became a pastor and one who innate curiosity has lead him to educate himself with other scholars, studying the scriptures much more in depth than so many of those who find themselves Religious leaders with only a perhaps knowledge of the history and writings of the Religion they preach about. As if reading the Bible alone is all you need.
We are such small creatures on a minor world within this Universe. Often our arrogance as humans is so unjustified.
Delia,
I think the problem with many Christians in the US is the need to believe they are the center of the Universe. I may be wrong but I believe they need to feel they are here for a higher purpose and need to justify their existence in the Cosmos. I also believe they need to feel a need to be closest to God, the chosen people. The possibility that you are not is not something they wish to delve into.
We as humans are prone to not want to know certain things, all of us have that within us, and I believe this can be a reason why so many wish not to believe in evolution. Thus the title of this post, “God in Our Own Image”. Some need that reassurance and to think they may have evolved and may evolve right out of existence is far too uncomfortable for some.
Secsol,
Well, I guess as you are a confirmed Atheist you would not be able to comprehend what has been written. The first couple of paragraphs of the email I shared with all on OS pretty much said it. To the thesis I put forth here I don’t see how you can offer anything as you have by your own admission denied to open yourself to question, or at the very least have elevated your argument in your own mind that you hold the absolute truth. Now, to someone like me and many other thinkers that is the height of ignorance disguised as an arrogant knowledge. From you post I seem to gather a hostility that often comes from one who fears to be questioned, not open towards critiques.
I mention our inability to grasp fully the reality of infinity, we are incapable of doing so. Thus when one says they are absolutely convinced there is no supreme force within the Universe, there can be no common ground for the beginning for a discussion. You have taken away any attempt for discourse. Atheist like those absolute believers’ arguments are very basic and one that has been aired often, so why revisit them, they are closed and leave no opening for discourse.
Thus you have made your offering and I for one have long ago moved on past that argument as it no longer serves a purpose to me. Much like the Evangelical that wants me to be saved by HIS God. I have been there and gone far beyond where he is, he cannot understand where I have been as he hasn’t traveled that road. It appears as you also have no wish to travel that road for which you will explore the incompressible, unless you go there you cannot begin to understand. Of course you miss the point, you have no reference to find it.
Like his single dimensioned God that I speak of all but a very few of professed Atheist I have come in contact with is as single dimensioned as well.
I don’t feel that I am confused, far from it. I am also far less psychotic than most anyone I know and many will attest to this who know me. I do wonder that like he who is the true believer do you fear the unknown so thus prefer not to explore it? I do not, if anything I embrace it.
You might have referred the first part to some unknown cosmic wonder. Let me tell you: unknown cosmic bullshit has equal rights for existence on the basis of our ignorance of it. Both, in other words, are cosmically impotent ideas.
It's better if your first part, as it to me, refers to - quite obvious to us moderns - fact of our profound lack of control of the external world and of ignorance of our origin, as well as (therefore) absence of meaning and purpose of our lives and deaths. THAT incomprehensibility I accept.
Your second statement all of a sudden offers a name for incomprehensibility, calling it God, making this factual uncertainty (and there's no other) a KNOWABLE phenomenon. Well, on what grounds? And who is being arrogant here?
Your reasons for the switch are not of objective nature but psychological, imaginative. That's fine. But it makes it entirely personal psycho-therapeutic and has no value outside of your indulgent personality whatsoever.
The effects are profound. You turned yourself into an unreliable person for all secular intents and purposes of building an intelligent life together. It's you, man, who closed yourself for a discourse.
First of all, I really appreciate you contacting me to read this post. You read that I have a phobia of becoming a born again Christian. That is true but I should have expanded on it a bit.
Actually I fear all forms of zealotry. I have this social phobia that requires me to not be the person that rocks the boat. The idea of becoming someine who suddenly preaches to my brothers or friends is horrifying to me.
Having said this, I'm not an athiest. Actually I am in awe of the universe, and of the notion that we, as humans, create art, music, literature, poetry, civics, architecture, government, and so on.
I have no idea why this has happened. Life is a journey. I like and respect your post, and you, and like I said I'm very glad that you invited me to read this.
As far as how this will impact my life, who knows.
Peace, RF
As for me, I'm spiritual but not religious because the world's major religions are too patriarchal and political for me. My favorite metaphor for the possibility that we are all interconnected is the Buddhist's Indra's Net of Jewels.
What good can possibly come from such discussions, other than one's reaffirmation of already held beliefs (which seems to be the usual raison d'etre)?
Monte and Bruce on one side, SecSol and Richard Dawkins on the other can argue this 'til they're blue in the face, and in the end, neither they, nor their readers, will know a damn thing more than they did in the beginning. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went."
The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam
I hope this response is acceptable.
blessings,
b