"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty." Albert Einstein
...
This statement by Einstein shows one of the problems with anthropomorphism, the attribution of human qualities to nonhumans, in this case, God. When we anthropomorphize God there are consequences we may not have considered, such as, the problem of unbelief—because who wishes to believe in a God who would be so petty as the God Einstein describes above, and yet, that is exactly what many of us are taught. There are other limitations engendered by this very human habit, all of them limiting our imaginations, our thinking and our ability to know.
"Almost everything said of God is unworthy, for the very reason that it is capable of being said." Pope Gregory the Great
...
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
ronnierayjenkins
Aunt Sal
Kate Bishop
David Cox
nofrills chunky monkey
Lisa Kern
Salon.com
Comments
Excellent post. "Almost everything said of God is unworthy..."
rated
Thanks Suzanne ... I'll be back ... I think there's something else I want to say ...
I wonder why do we, as humans, feel we have to be able to reduce things to their smallest, tangible parts ...
I don't mean to start a debate, but I think it's just built-in. In most cases knowing more is better than knowing less, and in the rest it's usually only possible to say afterwards, "I wish I hadn't known that." Plus there's the whole idea that our modern world, for better or worse, is the result of people trying to figure things out rather than just believing.
I suppose if fish have theological discussions they talk about the "fins of God" and the "gills of God."
One of the reasons some people have turned to Christ is the belief that "if you have seen the Son you have seen the Father." Perhaps that is one of the reasons that Christianity is a relatively unique religion.
Each person can decide if that is true, and can answer for themselves Jesus' question, "But, you, who do you say that I am?" Or, we can reject the question. All answers are possible and Jesus does not compel any specific answer or any answer at all. That is what free will is all about. I say this not to cause a ruckus, but to point out that all people are invited, not compelled, to answer that question.
When the church or the State has chosen to compel that everyone must answer that question and answer only in one way some of the worst and most indefensible actions in Christian history have resulted.
Beyond that all theological questions are attempts to unravel the mysteries of God and God's relationship to humanity. And no answers are complete because it is our nature not to know all that there is about our Creator. As I like to say, we are not wired to know everything.
The Church has consistently found resistance through the centuries when certain under understandings of the nature of God have been canonized. I don't object to that because that is the way any church or spiritual group distinguishes itself from other social organizations.
Where the two denominations that I am credentialed in have doctrines that I believe are wrong I choose to try to change them working within the organization. Those who choose otherwise often leave. And many never join in the first place. And I respect their right to make those choices.
Mishima and I have written on this issue recently and there have been wonderful and civilized comments and replies to that post on mishima's blog. The discussions are long but they are filled with remarkably good thinking on these issues.
Christianity Without Dogma: A Discussion
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=72854
Very good post. Interesting questions.
Monte
"Ya gotta leave some room for some genius to get it right..."
That was a pretty funny comeback. Thanks.
I would recommend reading Huston Smith to anyone. He is one of our clearest, most concise modern writers on the subject of religion.
And just like what we are beginning to know through science, if we give up our fear, we can learn to "know what we know," allowing there to be empty places where we know nothing as yet, rather than being so certain in our less than full inquiry. The problem with most of our concepts is that they are like naming something, and once we think we know the name of something, we stop inquiring because once we do we think we know the entirety of what we need to know. I think that is like stopping an inquiry shortly after the introductions. I think this response may also work for Rob as well...
Thanks for coming by fellows.
From your perspective as a Christian you clearly have come to a place where you don't settle for partial information as a place to stop your inquiry.
The most important point I wanted to come to here is that stopping the inquiry, by whatever method we use, is a terrible injustice we do to ourselves. In my joking response to Rick, I actually was pointing to our potential to acquaint ourselves, to explore as a lifelong inquirer into the sacred mystery of life. That it is difficult, that it is not yet fully accomplished are not impediments, but to me, are one of the ways that life has become inherently challenging and interesting. I don't think we are meant to be bored!
It always seemed silly to me that an omnipotent being would bother with a blue speck in a field of infinite space. Jefferson, and others nurtured by ideas of "The Enlightenment" came to believe in an indifferent creator.....who made the earth, then got out of the way. This is interesting, but it still implies there is a personality with dominant will out there.