Comment by Daniel Wilcox on 11th mo. 23, 2015 at 12:23pm

Howard, I think you have made several good points, especially the one where you say, "I am unconcerned that they choose never to use the "God" word.  They are an example of 'God in action'!"

I've begun to realize for too long I've been too focused on the word "God." I know the main reason is that I've hung onto the "god" word is because often people who refused to use that word turn out to be post-modernists in the bad sense of the word. I'm not interested in using religious language if it is only a perceptual illusion within my brain and not true reality.

But I do need to move on and choose a different term.

The difficulty is there doesn't seem to be a word which is a good substitute. Sort of like "love" which is also an empty-bucket of a word, it is still hard to come up with a substitute for ether "God" or "love."

Lastly, it still confuses me why some Quakers insist on emphasizing that they are "no-god" Quakers. It reminds of me Neil Neil deGrasse Tyson saying he doesn't call himself a "no-god" scientist anymore than he calls himself a no-golf scientist:-)

Why emphasize the negative, especially since the word "god" is so contradictory in its meanings?

Why don't Quakers instead call themselves something like this--"Light Quakers:-)? It would sort of be like Dawkins and the gang calling themselves "Brights."

Or how about Humanist Quakers? Again the focus on meaning is positive.

I don't think the word "Universe" works in place of "God" unless one is really a pantheist. Also it's confusing; the universe is cancer, is murderers, is natural selection. Does speaking of the universe as sacred mean that everything destructive and evil is part of true reality?

Thanks to all of you on this discussion for getting me to think more:-).

Comment by Daniel Wilcox on 11th mo. 23, 2015 at 12:24pm

Sorry for the typing errors. I missed them somehow. It should say, "It reminds me of Neil..."

Comment by Howard Brod on 11th mo. 23, 2015 at 1:27pm

Daniel,

I am also not attracted to using negative language to describe my spirituality, unless I must do so to explain myself to someone - things are clearly understood.

I just get so tired of all the labels.  They often do not accurately describe the heart, the motivation, and the essence of each of us.

The Bible does say "God is Love".  I have found for myself that using 'Light and Love' (both in caps inside single quotes) generally conveys the essence of what I am hoping to describe - without labeling it.  Some people prefer the expression 'I Am' (as in "the 'I Am'") instead of my choice or the 'God' word.

In the end I love that we are finding this relationship with the divine so amazing, so mysterious, so mystical, so life-changing, so inclusive, so loving, so filled with Light, so giving, so sustaining, so comforting, so real - that there is no label to satisfactorily describe it.  In of itself that is a testimony to its power.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 11th mo. 23, 2015 at 1:33pm

Daniel, I think that is the point: that it isn't "a perceptional illusion within my brain."

I could explain, at excruciating length, about the physiology and the abstract network characteristics that explain how a brain generates intelligent, even 'creative' activity. I understand (and can write, albeit clumsily) programs that generate similar characteristics within a different abstract network (but with some qualities in common) constructed of different materials.

None of that explains how any of these physical events (inside or outside our brains) could account for the fact that we do experience life at all.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 11th mo. 23, 2015 at 2:04pm

This self-evident Presence experienced directly and without meditation, representation, reflection, or remembrance, in the inspiration of the Light is experiencing the living Word not the words. Yes Howard, It is experiencing and speaking the Name, I AM. No one can speak the divine I AM itself without experiencing himself or herself in inspired Presence or else it is spoken in vain. To experience identity and meaning in interaction with self-evident inward Presence during specific outward life experiences is the coming of the Spirit, the Comforter, again into the world in the conscious and conscience of people. It is heaven being populated on earth into a new ecology of the Kingdom. This different ecology of Heaven is a new way of organic being and relations governed and directed in Presence itself. Heaven is being populated even now in the speaking ... I AM. 

Comment by Adria Gulizia on 11th mo. 23, 2015 at 2:25pm

The Bible has so many names for God (and for Jesus). If you are struggling to capture His nature in one word, may I recommend giving yourself to use many? Here are some traditional possibilities:

• The Almighty
• The All-Sufficient
• Author of Peace 
• Comforter
• Consuming Fire
• Creator
• Father of Glory
• Most High
• God Merciful and Gracious
• Helper of the Fatherless
• Just One
• King of Heaven
• Deliverer
• Refuge
• Redeemer
• The Potter
• Righteous One
• The Rock
• Sanctifier
• Shelter
• Shepherd
• Shield
• The True Vine
• The (Many-)Breasted One

I agree with Forrest and Daniel that "Love" and "Universe" seem to be lacking (for example, love could be contrasted to firmness, righteous anger and justice, but God is those things, too. And the Universe is also agonizing deaths, emptiness, and entropy, which are in conflict with God's fullness, life and order). However, I also agree with Howard that no one label is sufficient. When we read our Bibles, we realize that there is no need to limit ourselves to one label for God, because God, though one, has many aspects. Just as Jesus is the cornerstone, the light, the seed, the good shepherd, the deliverer, the bread of life and much more, God is complicated. No need to put Him in a box!

Comment by Howard Brod on 11th mo. 23, 2015 at 4:54pm

So insightful and helpful, Adria!  Thanks!

Comment by Kirby Urner on 11th mo. 24, 2015 at 12:16pm

Atheists I know rarely question that there was an historical Jesus who said many of those things.  More likely their skepticism is about the ethics behind those things he supposedly did say e.g. Deuteronomy 22:23-24 gives an example of "the law" that involves stoning people, and then in Mark 5:18-19 and Luke 16:17 Jesus seems to uphold this law as just, not as something to be changed.  I'm looking at an atheist publication to get this example.  The gist of this section is women have horribly low status in the Bible and Jesus seems more to uphold this "law" than to question it. (OVO 16 Antichrist 2011).  I think Liberals to some extent share the view that Jesus was preaching to his time and context and Jewish Law of his day is nothing we'd care to keep in our own time -- we see it as waaaay too sinful for our tastes.  We actually see ourselves as morally superior to most of Jesus's contemporaries.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 11th mo. 24, 2015 at 2:13pm

Kirby, really should study a bit first. The "Law" which Jesus supports as a matter of general principle does not at all necessarily include Deuteronomy ("discovered" under a Temple priest's mattress' under the Jerusalem-based regime of Josiah -- I don't know for sure either) or necessarily any particular one of the "laws of the Judeans" (imposed on Galilee about 100 years before Jesus' time.) He would be talking about the local Galilean Israelite traditions & customs, which I know differed significantly from that we have today.

Jesus from what we're told goes far out on a limb challenging the anti-female customs of (at least) Judea. He's accused of hanging out with hookers because any woman traveling about unaccompanied by a male relative is automatically so-labeled in his day.

The dominant faction of the Pharisees in his day was a militantly nationalist fundamentalist movement which had displaced Hillel's disciples with clubs & spears, literally.  ("Jerusalem, stoning the prophets"?) [Life under imperial domination and looting does affect religions that way...  ] Hillel's disciples regained their leadership of the Pharisee movement after the devastating Jewish revolt of the 70's, and the rabbis since then will first read their former rivals' decision of a case, then give Hillel's as the decisive interpretation of the Law.

Comment by Kirby Urner on 11th mo. 24, 2015 at 2:39pm

Hey I'm just passing on some obscure knowledge of Atheist Esoterica, not trying to advertise myself as a Biblical scholar, a shingle I don't hang out.  I sit at the feet of others when I'm wanting to study what's in the Bible.  When I cite a source, don't assume that's me talking.

I'm quite happy to give, as my own position, that Jesus was an uber-daring dude (who'd deny it?) and besides, who are we, centuries later, to retroactively pin all our standards to the man, as if we were his primary audience.   I'm aware some sects, including those calling themselves Christian, think he might have physically survived crucifixion, but I don't want to take a position on that myself.  I allow myself to study only a very few conspiracies, in the interests of having a life, and that's not one of them.  JFK and WTC I've studied more.  The so-called "passover plot" is for others to delve into.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passover_Plot

On the other hand, I well empathize with contemporaries who eschew the Bible as a "moral guide" of any kind as so much of the advisory text seems just plain wrong, from Deuteronomy to Ephesians, from Leviticus to... whatever. 

This comment hearkens back to an earlier thread about whether we wanna take the Bible as a moral authority, and even impose it on others (!) as if that's an OK thing.  Should we, in good conscience, in a secular society, apply such atavistic amoral standards?  I'd say of course not.  Nor was Jesus content with the moral climate of his day. 

However, that doesn't mean I have the right to take the Bible away from people, either.  I've argued for self determination by small groups.  The Taliban deserve a safe space in which to practice, which doesn't have to be the whole of Afghanistan.  We wouldn't have the terrorism we do in this world if we'd just walk the talk and allow that modicum of religious freedom we give lip service to.  We should listen to the ACLU.  Peaceful co-existence means allowing weird cults to odd churches to flourish, just not take over the show (any one of them).

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page