|
Post by placid-void on Sept 17, 2014 8:23:58 GMT -5
Have you ever desired an understanding of something that is just beyond reach?
I have such a desire.
I would like to have a calm reasonable discussion of the importance (or unimportance) of using descriptions of “God” that are based on human characteristics.
It seems reasonable to claim that persons who think about a presence in the universe of a power or consciousness that transcends the power and consciousness of mankind are ultimately led to words such as ineffable or omniscient. And yet, when persons talk one to another about such a presence, they invariably seem to reduce that ineffable and omniscient presence to human dimensions, with human characteristics and human emotions.
My questions include: Is the reduction of an ineffable presence (if such exists) to a human scale absolutely necessary for meaningful discourse? Should it be possible to think about human ‘meaning’ and human ‘purpose’ within a context that extends beyond human images and human understanding?
I was B&R in the F&W community so I am familiar with the images of Father, Son, Shepherd, Master, Jealous God, etc. But with age, I have grown very uncomfortable with these images. I have grown uncomfortable with the images because they seem limiting and artificial. I have also grown uncomfortable with what they imply and what they produce (witness the mass of confusion among the competing dogmas within and between organized religions).
My questions are for the deeply religious (spiritual); do you discuss “God” using human terms but experience reverence toward a presence that transcends human comprehension? How do you make the transition between these two states of mind?
My questions are also for those who do not embrace concepts of “God” as discussed in human terms. Do persons who identify with an atheistic perspective on life generally embrace concepts of “human exceptionalism” and anthropocentrism? Is it a fundamental belief of atheism that only humans have the capacity to comprehend reality?
Hope my questions don’t stir up a bee's nest . . . . . .
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 17, 2014 8:49:23 GMT -5
My questions are also for those who do not embrace concepts of “God” as discussed in human terms. Do persons who identify with an atheistic perspective on life generally embrace concepts of “human exceptionalism” and anthropocentrism? Is it a fundamental belief of atheism that only humans have the capacity to comprehend reality? I think of my atheism as more of an off-shoot of my skepticism. Oh of course not. Questions of this kind almost never do!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 9:02:12 GMT -5
Have you ever desired an understanding of something that is just beyond reach? I have such a desire. I would like to have a calm reasonable discussion of the importance (or unimportance) of using descriptions of “God” that are based on human characteristics. It seems reasonable to claim that persons who think about a presence in the universe of a power or consciousness that transcends the power and consciousness of mankind are ultimately led to words such as ineffable or omniscient. And yet, when persons talk one to another about such a presence, they invariably seem to reduce that ineffable and omniscient presence to human dimensions, with human characteristics and human emotions. My questions include: Is the reduction of an ineffable presence (if such exists) to a human scale absolutely necessary for meaningful discourse? Should it be possible to think about human ‘meaning’ and human ‘purpose’ within a context that extends beyond human images and human understanding? I was B&R in the F&W community so I am familiar with the images of Father, Son, Shepherd, Master, Jealous God, etc. But with age, I have grown very uncomfortable with these images. I have grown uncomfortable with the images because they seem limiting and artificial. I have also grown uncomfortable with what they imply and what they produce (witness the mass of confusion among the competing dogmas within and between organized religions). My questions are for the deeply religious (spiritual); do you discuss “God” using human terms but experience reverence toward a presence that transcends human comprehension? How do you make the transition between these two states of mind? My questions are also for those who do not embrace concepts of “God” as discussed in human terms. Do persons who identify with an atheistic perspective on life generally embrace concepts of “human exceptionalism” and anthropocentrism? Is it a fundamental belief of atheism that only humans have the capacity to comprehend reality? Hope my questions don’t stir up a bees nest . . . . . . thats a deep question and i dont know if i can answer it very well..but yes we relate to God from a human standpoint its all we can do given that were human yet we still have reverence for that which we cannot know...
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 17, 2014 9:32:08 GMT -5
Oh of course not. Questions of this kind almost never do! Rational,I am worried about you. Please remove your tongue from your cheek before you bite yourself.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 17, 2014 9:34:52 GMT -5
My questions are also for those who do not embrace concepts of “God” as discussed in human terms. Do persons who identify with an atheistic perspective on life generally embrace concepts of “human exceptionalism” and anthropocentrism? Is it a fundamental belief of atheism that only humans have the capacity to comprehend reality? Atheists lack belief in a god or gods. As far as I know, this is the only generalization one can rightfully make about atheists. It makes most sense to me that the myriad forms of life on earth, developed through processes of evolution. I see humans as one kind of evolved animal among many…and not some “ultimate creation” or “ultimate product” of evolution. I believe we have more in common with other animals, including some so-called “lower life forms” than we might like to think. I also believe we are much more driven by instinct and “gut reaction” than we might like to think, and that our ideas about what constitutes “reality” are heavily prejudiced by these. It is not clear to me that we human beings will survive our “successes” as a species or leave a post-nuclear earth to the cockroaches!
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 17, 2014 9:42:07 GMT -5
thats a deep question and i dont know if i can answer it very well..but yes we relate to God from a human standpoint its all we can do given that were human yet we still have reverence for that which we cannot know... Wally, if honesty is next to godliness your are certainly "Godly". Would you be willing to push your response just a little further. I understand using human imagery to communicate with others but what about when you are plumping the pillows, smelling the Autumn air of passing another vehicle on the roadway. How do you relate to your "God" at those times? As a parent, or a boss, or a disciplinarian teacher? Or do you feel and experience something else, something that is real to you but inexplicable to others?
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 17, 2014 9:49:29 GMT -5
Atheists lack belief in a god or gods. As far as I know, this is the only generalization one can rightfully make about atheists. It makes most sense to me that the myriad forms of life on earth, developed through processes of evolution. I see humans as one kind of evolved animal among many…and not some “ultimate creation” or “ultimate product” of evolution. I believe we have more in common with other animals, including some so-called “lower life forms” than we might like to think. I also believe we are much more driven by instinct and “gut reaction” than we might like to think, and that our ideas about what constitutes “reality” are heavily prejudiced by these. It is not clear to me that we human beings will survive our “successes” as a species or leave a post-nuclear earth to the cockroaches! Amen. But how, then, does one then step back from the jaws of nilhism? The nematodes in the garden, the mice in the attic, our pets, my acquaintances are not nihilistic, why? What motivates survival?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 17, 2014 10:08:44 GMT -5
Atheists lack belief in a god or gods. As far as I know, this is the only generalization one can rightfully make about atheists. It makes most sense to me that the myriad forms of life on earth, developed through processes of evolution. I see humans as one kind of evolved animal among many…and not some “ultimate creation” or “ultimate product” of evolution. I believe we have more in common with other animals, including some so-called “lower life forms” than we might like to think. I also believe we are much more driven by instinct and “gut reaction” than we might like to think, and that our ideas about what constitutes “reality” are heavily prejudiced by these. It is not clear to me that we human beings will survive our “successes” as a species or leave a post-nuclear earth to the cockroaches! Amen. But how, then, does one then step back from the jaws of nilhism? The nematodes in the garden, the mice in the attic, our pets, my acquaintances are not nihilistic, why? What motivates survival? In my experience, my relationships with others...especially with children, have been fundamental to my desire to keep going. In the face of the possibility that life is ultimately meaningless, one can find/create meaning in one's present existence, and in the desire and process of helping others find meaning in their existence. I expect some would be surprised at the richness of experience that can be found in the seeming "sparseness" of this point of view.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Sept 17, 2014 11:21:29 GMT -5
Have you ever desired an understanding of something that is just beyond reach? I have such a desire. I would like to have a calm reasonable discussion of the importance (or unimportance) of using descriptions of “God” that are based on human characteristics. It seems reasonable to claim that persons who think about a presence in the universe of a power or consciousness that transcends the power and consciousness of mankind are ultimately led to words such as ineffable or omniscient. And yet, when persons talk one to another about such a presence, they invariably seem to reduce that ineffable and omniscient presence to human dimensions, with human characteristics and human emotions. My questions include: Is the reduction of an ineffable presence (if such exists) to a human scale absolutely necessary for meaningful discourse? Should it be possible to think about human ‘meaning’ and human ‘purpose’ within a context that extends beyond human images and human understanding? I was B&R in the F&W community so I am familiar with the images of Father, Son, Shepherd, Master, Jealous God, etc. But with age, I have grown very uncomfortable with these images. I have grown uncomfortable with the images because they seem limiting and artificial. I have also grown uncomfortable with what they imply and what they produce (witness the mass of confusion among the competing dogmas within and between organized religions). My questions are for the deeply religious (spiritual); do you discuss “God” using human terms but experience reverence toward a presence that transcends human comprehension? How do you make the transition between these two states of mind? My questions are also for those who do not embrace concepts of “God” as discussed in human terms. Do persons who identify with an atheistic perspective on life generally embrace concepts of “human exceptionalism” and anthropocentrism? Is it a fundamental belief of atheism that only humans have the capacity to comprehend reality? Hope my questions don’t stir up a bee's nest . . . . . . Trying to understand what you are asking here. If I have misunderstood, let me know. When we are starting to think about God, we can only do it from where we are - our vision and understanding are limited by what we are and our experiences with the world around us. Then, as God starts to reveal Himself to us, we start to see a little more of what He is. The way I see Him today is not the same as yesterday. Same with any relationship, isn't it? The words "master" and "jealous" carry a negative connotation when seen through the lens of human relationships. But when you start to enter into a personal relationship with God because He has drawn you into it with His love, has shown you His will at certain times of struggle and you have been awed by the beauty of it (regardless of whether you were willing for it or not), when He has solved personal problems for you, given you direct guidance, given help (even against natural laws), has shown you His unconditional love and interest in your welfare, these words take on a different meaning. You realize that in spite of all the attributes that describe Him in ways we cannot comprehend now, there is no one in this life who loves me more, has more unconditional interest in my affairs, whose guidance I can trust more. I like the words "husband" and "father." I have an OK father and the best husband in the world. How does God differ from ideal parents or spouses? While ideal parents and spouses have your interest in mind all the time and want the best for you, there is still something else competing with these desires at least at times and in a measure, they can never know you completely, and they cannot know what is best for you at all times. God knows you completely and He knows what is best for you and there is never conflict of interests because His will is best for you. You learn that, not because you've been taught by others, but through experiences with Him and by seeing the results when you do according to His guidance. You learn to trust Him and rely on Him. Is that how transition is made between seeing God in human terms and something that transcends that - by God revealing Himself to us and drawing us into a relationship with Him and into the process of transformation into being one with Him? But the beginning step is what you call "the desire to understand something beyond our reach." And this desire should never end, because there will be more to learn and understand as long as we are here. Sorry, this is not as intellectual as you may be hoping for Just purely experiential. If my quest had been more intellectual, and if I didn't have such a need to know God on an experiential level, maybe my answer would be different. But, in any relationship, can you know and understand those you love by just studying them and thinking about them, or do you have to spend time with them and go through experiences with them in order to know them truly (not as an observer but participant)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 13:18:52 GMT -5
thats a deep question and i dont know if i can answer it very well..but yes we relate to God from a human standpoint its all we can do given that were human yet we still have reverence for that which we cannot know... Wally, if honesty is next to godliness your are certainly "Godly". Would you be willing to push your response just a little further. I understand using human imagery to communicate with others but what about when you are plumping the pillows, smelling the Autumn air of passing another vehicle on the roadway. How do you relate to your "God" at those times? As a parent, or a boss, or a disciplinarian teacher? Or do you feel and experience something else, something that is real to you but inexplicable to others? your stretching my brain and vocabulary! when plumping the pillows, smelling the autumn air or passing a vehicle, i relieze how perfect in fit form and function Gods world is. and how even though we'll never grasp all that is God he has blessed us with ALOT of time to figure SOME things out.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 17, 2014 15:42:23 GMT -5
In my experience, my relationships with others...especially with children, have been fundamental to my desire to keep going. In the face of the possibility that life is ultimately meaningless, one can find/create meaning in one's present existence, and in the desire and process of helping others find meaning in their existence. I expect some would be surprised at the richness of experience that can be found in the seeming "sparseness" of this point of view. Matisse, do you think there would be a qualitative or quantitative difference between the feeling that you describe here and the feeling that a monk might experience as he might try to bring meaning to an intrinsically meaningless world through the contemplation of a "higher power"? Perhaps you would anticipate no difference between the two experiences. The experience you describe seems close to a Buddhist meditation, would you describe your experiences as similar to those traditions?
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 17, 2014 16:02:23 GMT -5
Trying to understand what you are asking here. If I have misunderstood, let me know. When we are starting to think about God, we can only do it from where we are - our vision and understanding are limited by what we are and our experiences with the world around us. Then, as God starts to reveal Himself to us, we start to see a little more of what He is. The way I see Him today is not the same as yesterday. Same with any relationship, isn't it? The words "master" and "jealous" carry a negative connotation when seen through the lens of human relationships. But when you start to enter into a personal relationship with God because He has drawn you into it with His love, has shown you His will at certain times of struggle and you have been awed by the beauty of it (regardless of whether you were willing for it or not), when He has solved personal problems for you, given you direct guidance, given help (even against natural laws), has shown you His unconditional love and interest in your welfare, these words take on a different meaning. You realize that in spite of all the attributes that describe Him in ways we cannot comprehend now, there is no one in this life who loves me more, has more unconditional interest in my affairs, whose guidance I can trust more. I like the words "husband" and "father." I have an OK father and the best husband in the world. How does God differ from ideal parents or spouses? While ideal parents and spouses have your interest in mind all the time and want the best for you, there is still something else competing with these desires at least at times and in a measure, they can never know you completely, and they cannot know what is best for you at all times. God knows you completely and He knows what is best for you and there is never conflict of interests because His will is best for you. You learn that, not because you've been taught by others, but through experiences with Him and by seeing the results when you do according to His guidance. You learn to trust Him and rely on Him. Is that how transition is made between seeing God in human terms and something that transcends that - by God revealing Himself to us and drawing us into a relationship with Him and into the process of transformation into being one with Him? But the beginning step is what you call "the desire to understand something beyond our reach." And this desire should never end, because there will be more to learn and understand as long as we are here. Sorry, this is not as intellectual as you may be hoping for Just purely experiential. If my quest had been more intellectual, and if I didn't have such a need to know God on an experiential level, maybe my answer would be different. But, in any relationship, can you know and understand those you love by just studying them and thinking about them, or do you have to spend time with them and go through experiences with them in order to know them truly (not as an observer but participant)? Maja, that is a very powerful response. It will take me some time to absorb the depth of what you are saying. As I do that, would you be willing to continue your quest another step or two (just in your mind). Would it be at all possible to remove all of the pronouns (He, Him, Himself, etc.) from what you have written and for it still to have the same meaning to you? The second question is a little bit stranger. As I read your comments, I experience the feeling that "God is 'out there' someplace". Would it be possible to move your concept of "God" from 'out there' to 'in here' by which I mean within yourself. I am trying to understand if perhaps your "God" might be a part of who you are and the more you seek that presence, the more you bring meaning to your life. That probably doesn't make much sense but I wonder if these are things that fit within your understanding of "God". Thanks
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 17, 2014 16:28:37 GMT -5
The most impressive explanation I have heard on this matter came from my autistic grandson when he was about 10 or 11 - certainly not 12.
"If god exists, he has to be something that is in all the atoms in the universe. Otherwise it wouldn't work."
One person remarkably came close to this explanation -- in a Sunday morning meeting. I forget how he worded it, but I was certainly had never heard anything like it in meeting.
I like reading the book of Ecclesiastes. An ex-worker told me to read it "for what it does not say".
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Sept 17, 2014 17:36:46 GMT -5
Maja, that is a very powerful response. It will take me some time to absorb the depth of what you are saying. As I do that, would you be willing to continue your quest another step or two (just in your mind). Would it be at all possible to remove all of the pronouns (He, Him, Himself, etc.) from what you have written and for it still to have the same meaning to you? The second question is a little bit stranger. As I read your comments, I experience the feeling that "God is 'out there' someplace". Would it be possible to move your concept of "God" from 'out there' to 'in here' by which I mean within yourself. I am trying to understand if perhaps your "God" might be a part of who you are and the more you seek that presence, the more you bring meaning to your life. That probably doesn't make much sense but I wonder if these are things that fit within your understanding of "God". Thanks I've tried your exercise and found it funny. Can I talk about my relationship with my husband and leave him out? I think that the more we are united with God in love, will, purpose, the less we perceive Him as outside of us - or us outside of Him - there is less separation, and not just between us and God, but also between us and others. (As we get to know God, we don't just enter into His love for us, but also into His love for others.) I am a Christian, so I wonder what it means that "in Him we live and move and have our being" or that God will be "all in all" or that the church is "the body of Christ" or that Jesus prayed that we "may all be one" as he and the Father are. There is so much we don't understand, and I can see how we could all be really 'one,' but most of us don't see it now. Our soul is fractured and our oneness with God is fractured. So I have two adopted kids. One of them has attachment issues. She is in the family, we love her, but she has a hard time believing or accepting our love. She feels a separation and insecurity. Is the separation there because she is not part of the family or because we don't love her? Or is it because there is something in her that causes her to feel separated? When she has fully entered into the love we have for her and starts to draw satisfaction from it, she will stop perceiving this separation and will finally be able to feel what it's like be part of family and feel one with us. Is it the same with God and us? At this point, I doubt that I will ever say "I" instead of "He and I," but maybe the day (in eternity) will come when we will say "we" instead of "He and I." Or, are you asking if God is actually my "higher self"? The reason why I don't think that's true is because when He speaks to me, He uses pronouns (I, me, you). Again, when we are united with Him completely, is it possible that pronouns will be obsolete, because there will be no barriers and we will see Him as He is and ourselves as we are? Maybe
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 17, 2014 18:06:57 GMT -5
your stretching my brain and vocabulary! when plumping the pillows, smelling the autumn air or passing a vehicle, i relieze how perfect in fit form and function Gods world is. and how even though we'll never grasp all that is God he has blessed us with ALOT of time to figure SOME things out. "Perfect in fit, form and function" is a wonderful way to express the entirety of which we all are a part. Looking at it all from down on my end of the scale, I am not sure that it still seems like ALOT of time but I do agree we have had access to the tools to figure SOME of it out.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 17, 2014 18:47:26 GMT -5
NathanB, thank you for the research notes and scriptural documentation of your beliefs and convictions. Your posts are always characterized by an intensive review and analysis of scripture. I have read and familiarized myself with your scholarly arguments pertaining to the questions posed in this thread and appreciate you effort.
I beg of you, however, your indulgence as I attempt to express my reaction to your presentation. It is not my intention to offend you or to minimize the effort you expended in your detailed post. Sincerity, however, is the cornerstone of effective communication and I find that I am “left wanting” when I finish reading your summary.
I have read through your post a couple of times and I am unable to feel closer or more familiar with your “God”. I am unable to discern the nature of your relationship with your “God”. I recall reading Cliff Notes on Shakespeare’s Macbeth when I was in college. They were crammed with background, interpretive analysis and summary information but they lacked the vitalism required to bring the characters alive. I hope you will not interpret this analogy as harsh, it is not intended to be harsh. Rather, I am trying to communicate my difficulty in connecting with the “God” you describe on either an emotional or spiritual level.
I am truly interested in the “God” that you experience more so than the “God” that we all can find and interpret in our own ways through study of the scriptures.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 17, 2014 19:07:01 GMT -5
The most impressive explanation I have heard on this matter came from my autistic grandson when he was about 10 or 11 - certainly not 12. "If god exists, he has to be something that is in all the atoms in the universe. Otherwise it wouldn't work." One person remarkably came close to this explanation -- in a Sunday morning meeting. I forget how he worded it, but I was certainly had never heard anything like it in meeting. I like reading the book of Ecclesiastes. An ex-worker told me to read it "for what it does not say". BobWilliston, in many ways, my sense of things as I started this thread is captured by your grandson's observation. The idea that there could be meetings where folks could explore these feelings and experiences seems so genuine to me. The point would not be to set aside or abandon all of the rich traditions that have informed the development of our experiences and beliefs (Maja's post addresses the importance of these touchstones). Rather the point would be to open up to new expressions of the wonder and awe that many of us experience in our lives. Would like to hear more about your readings in Ecclesiastes as they relate to these topics.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 17, 2014 19:22:52 GMT -5
I've tried your exercise and found it funny. Can I talk about my relationship with my husband and leave him out? I think that the more we are united with God in love, will, purpose, the less we perceive Him as outside of us - or us outside of Him - there is less separation, and not just between us and God, but also between us and others. (As we get to know God, we don't just enter into His love for us, but also into His love for others.) I am a Christian, so I wonder what it means that "in Him we live and move and have our being" or that God will be "all in all" or that the church is "the body of Christ" or that Jesus prayed that we "may all be one" as he and the Father are. There is so much we don't understand, and I can see how we could all be really 'one,' but most of us don't see it now. Our soul is fractured and our oneness with God is fractured. So I have two adopted kids. One of them has attachment issues. She is in the family, we love her, but she has a hard time believing or accepting our love. She feels a separation and insecurity. Is the separation there because she is not part of the family or because we don't love her? Or is it because there is something in her that causes her to feel separated? When she has fully entered into the love we have for her and starts to draw satisfaction from it, she will stop perceiving this separation and will finally be able to feel what it's like be part of family and feel one with us. Is it the same with God and us? At this point, I doubt that I will ever say "I" instead of "He and I," but maybe the day (in eternity) will come when we will say "we" instead of "He and I." Or, are you asking if God is actually my "higher self"? The reason why I don't think that's true is because when He speaks to me, He uses pronouns (I, me, you). Again, when we are united with Him completely, is it possible that pronouns will be obsolete, because there will be no barriers and we will see Him as He is and ourselves as we are? Maybe Maja, I am running out of steam so I shan't do your post justice this evening. You make good points but I continue to struggle with the personification issue. It is interesting to me how we have narrowed the discussion down to a few pronouns. The question I want to wrestle with this evening is the following: "What value is added by the use of these pronouns as we seek to comprehend the purpose and meaning of our lives compared to seeking understanding at a deep and personal level without the pronouns?" Maybe the pronouns are hand-grips as we stretch toward greater understanding, huh? To be continued.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 17, 2014 19:48:19 GMT -5
Trying to understand what you are asking here. If I have misunderstood, let me know. When we are starting to think about God, we can only do it from where we are - our vision and understanding are limited by what we are and our experiences with the world around us. Then, as God starts to reveal Himself to us, we start to see a little more of what He is. The way I see Him today is not the same as yesterday. Same with any relationship, isn't it? From the original concept of god formed by humans there is no reason to think that the definition/description of god would not change to meet the needs of the creators. History shows that the definition of Ra changed over time. The pantheon of other gods, Greek, Roman, Norse also changed over time.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 17, 2014 19:52:03 GMT -5
when plumping the pillows, smelling the autumn air or passing a vehicle, i relieze how perfect in fit form and function Gods world is. and how even though we'll never grasp all that is God he has blessed us with ALOT of time to figure SOME things out. What, exactly, to you see as perfect?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 17, 2014 20:15:13 GMT -5
Yknot
This is what I love about you. Your ability to dig. If I/you/we want to know him? What we experience in nature with our physical body/senses is one way of connecting linking our soul with him being everywhere. What we experience trying to commune with him is slightly different because it is spirit to spirit. Our spirit is also involved with the first sentence. Communing/speaking audibly or silently in our mind is spirit to spirit contact.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 17, 2014 21:12:29 GMT -5
The most impressive explanation I have heard on this matter came from my autistic grandson when he was about 10 or 11 - certainly not 12. "If god exists, he has to be something that is in all the atoms in the universe. Otherwise it wouldn't work." One person remarkably came close to this explanation -- in a Sunday morning meeting. I forget how he worded it, but I was certainly had never heard anything like it in meeting. I like reading the book of Ecclesiastes. An ex-worker told me to read it "for what it does not say". BobWilliston, in many ways, my sense of things as I started this thread is captured by your grandson's observation. The idea that there could be meetings where folks could explore these feelings and experiences seems so genuine to me. The point would not be to set aside or abandon all of the rich traditions that have informed the development of our experiences and beliefs (Maja's post addresses the importance of these touchstones). Rather the point would be to open up to new expressions of the wonder and awe that many of us experience in our lives. Would like to hear more about your readings in Ecclesiastes as they relate to these topics. There is no mention of salvation -- the end for all is the same.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 18, 2014 1:03:42 GMT -5
In my experience, my relationships with others...especially with children, have been fundamental to my desire to keep going. In the face of the possibility that life is ultimately meaningless, one can find/create meaning in one's present existence, and in the desire and process of helping others find meaning in their existence. I expect some would be surprised at the richness of experience that can be found in the seeming "sparseness" of this point of view. Matisse, do you think there would be a qualitative or quantitative difference between the feeling that you describe here and the feeling that a monk might experience as he might try to bring meaning to an intrinsically meaningless world through the contemplation of a "higher power"? Perhaps you would anticipate no difference between the two experiences. The experience you describe seems close to a Buddhist meditation, would you describe your experiences as similar to those traditions? I draw my comments from experience I have had wrestling with a deep sense of despair and finding my way out of it with the help of friends and community members. I don't know how my experience compares to the experiences and traditions you wonder about. I think it would be accurate to say that my experience of despair represents a kind of "existential crisis."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2014 1:35:49 GMT -5
The most impressive explanation I have heard on this matter came from my autistic grandson when he was about 10 or 11 - certainly not 12. "If god exists, he has to be something that is in all the atoms in the universe. Otherwise it wouldn't work." One person remarkably came close to this explanation -- in a Sunday morning meeting. I forget how he worded it, but I was certainly had never heard anything like it in meeting. I like reading the book of Ecclesiastes. An ex-worker told me to read it "for what it does not say". love it,very very insightful Ephesians 4:6 KJV One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 18, 2014 1:47:34 GMT -5
The most impressive explanation I have heard on this matter came from my autistic grandson when he was about 10 or 11 - certainly not 12. "If god exists, he has to be something that is in all the atoms in the universe. Otherwise it wouldn't work." One person remarkably came close to this explanation -- in a Sunday morning meeting. I forget how he worded it, but I was certainly had never heard anything like it in meeting. I like reading the book of Ecclesiastes. An ex-worker told me to read it "for what it does not say". love it,very very insightful Ephesians 4:6 KJV One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Isn't it a bit too scientific for most devout Christians, though? I might be wrong, but people who are so radically opposed to science are not going to accept that all atoms are all made up of identical material. Not being a scientist I don't have all the vocabulary, but I think they know what I'm talking about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2014 2:41:13 GMT -5
love it,very very insightful Ephesians 4:6 KJV One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Isn't it a bit too scientific for most devout Christians, though? I might be wrong, but people who are so radically opposed to science are not going to accept that all atoms are all made up of identical material. Not being a scientist I don't have all the vocabulary, but I think they know what I'm talking about. when one has the Christ within one understands that with God nothing is impossible and He being the creator of all things exceeds all science and generally science discovers things that already are
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 18, 2014 3:42:09 GMT -5
Isn't it a bit too scientific for most devout Christians, though? I might be wrong, but people who are so radically opposed to science are not going to accept that all atoms are all made up of identical material. Not being a scientist I don't have all the vocabulary, but I think they know what I'm talking about. when one has the Christ within one understands that with God nothing is impossible and He being the creator of all things exceeds all science and generally science discovers things that already are I don't think that's what my grandson was thinking about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2014 4:05:37 GMT -5
when one has the Christ within one understands that with God nothing is impossible and He being the creator of all things exceeds all science and generally science discovers things that already are I don't think that's what my grandson was thinking about. that may as well be true but just responing to your post [Isn't it a bit too scientific for most devout Christians, though? I might be wrong, but people who are so radically opposed to science are not going to accept that all atoms are all made up of identical material. Not being a scientist I don't have all the vocabulary, but I think they know what I'm talking about.]
|
|