There was a time when I really believed unions had outlived their usefulness in America. For a number of reasons I won’t bother with here, I’ve sort of come to realize they’re more of a necessary evil in some industries even if I don’t trust their bosses. Now I wonder if it’s religion that hasn’t outlived its usefulness in the world.
About the time I was wondering about that, I got an email from my old buddy Bill on an uncannily similar idea. Bill thought the regular contributors to Horsepoup might provide some good discussion about some questions he had. I hope that means he saw Horsepoup as a place where one is encouraged to argue politics and religion rather than a place, like the rest of public America, where such discussion is discouraged, and thus any real understanding, analysis, consensus building, progress or brotherhood is also discouraged.
In any event, I’m running the email (with Bill’s permission of course) as a guest post. Comments on the questions that arise will be neatly listed in the comments link, but may also make their way onto the main page if they shoot off into significantly different directions. So here’s the start:
Hey Luth,
So our little discussion last weekend got the rusty wheels of grand ideas turning again. And I was thinking the other day about a conversation that would be good to have with you and Ray, your trusty interlocutor on the Horsepoup blog. I think the three of us represent a range of opinions on the issue of faith, of a Creator (capital "C"), etc.
I thought I would try to begin a conversation with what I take to be a simple, yet genuine question. The question I've asked myself of late goes something like this: do I have faith? Given that I do not believe in a Creator (let alone *the* Creator), am I also without faith? Or can I say that I have faith in some other way/thing?
I don't know how to tackle that question head on, hence my inclination to have a dialogue with you and Ray. So to start that off, I'll present my case for not believing in a creator as a good thing, not just for me, but for others too.
In a nutshell, I believe *not* believing in God makes me a better person. And I believe a lack of belief in God, more generally, removes the fundamental idea of a hierarchy of consciousness - that is, of a "supreme being" to which humans are ultimately accountable. Without that hierarchy we are accountable to our fellow humans. To one another. With nobody to grant absolution, we are left to creating the conditions of a peaceful, loving world ourselves. We cannot suspend this responsibility even for one minute, because there is no time *after* which we will be
absolved for *not* creating peace among one another. The fulfilling life in this view of the world is one where you make others' lives better. Because this is the mechanism - and the only one - for joy in one's own life. Give. To others. That's all we have.
This message is not far from biblical. First Corinthians 13 says "now abideth, faith, hope, and love; these three, but the greatest of these is love." I agree.
When we put God before humans in the world, we reverse this trinity. The greatest of these, for many religious people, is "faith." This move, in fact, placing faith (or, as some might put it, a "personal relationship with God") as the primary thing in life, you can (if you are Southern Baptist, for example) forgive catastrophic human violence and cruelty. You can live a sacred life and still keep slaves. Why? Because the greatest virtue is not love for your fellow human, but faith in a higher power who makes one unaccountable to one's fellow humans.
That's enough of a start, I think. I have another bit I want to propose too - one that proposes a little thought experiment that makes a different case. If we imagine ourselves as God (and if we are created in the image of the creator, this is not an unreasonable move), what kind of human consciousness would we want to encourage and nurture? One that is forever subservient, full of divine entitlement, and unaccountable to other humans? Sounds like bad parenting to me. But more on that one later...
20 comments:
I'd love to post your message as is and let Ray chime in. The guy that introduced me to Ray would also be a cool guy to get involved. He's a Texan... lawyer, Democrat from back when those in the South and
the West were all good Christians. If I get your approval, we'll use that message to start us off.
For my part, I've sort of always believed in a creator, I've just never been sold on who knows the best way to honor him, her, or it - how that creator would want us to live if, in fact, he/she/it is still even remotely concerned. At this point in my life, I'm pretty sure that the people on this planet who claim to know how best to do that are the worst at it. I feel compelled to admit that I've always had a problem with literal interpretations of the story of Jesus's life.
One thing that drew me to further study of Islam is the idea that Jesus's re-birth was an illusion God created in order to get us bad folks to actually pay attention to the very important prophet so many of us Earthlings ignored. To those who believe in the Trinity, that sounds blasphemous, but to those who believe the Trinity is blasphemous because it calls for the worship of people or things other than the Creator it/him/herself, it makes perfect sense... why couldn't God pull that off? And when even that failed to convince so many of us on Earth, God sent yet another prophet with a much simpler message to clear things up. Christians, of course, fail to recognize that simpler text. So there you have it?!
In your words, I hear a lot of what Theravaden Buddhism (supposedly the older, purer form of Buddhism) professes. Having just watched Little Miss Sunshine, I am compelled to add that much of what was misunderstood about Nietszche seems to align with it as well. Unlike popular Westernized Buddhism, Theravaden says there is no soul, no reincarnation as such, no continuity of any self (sounds opposite to Nietszche, but actually gets back to his version) but rather that we, as individuals, are nothing more (and nothing less) than a temporary arrangement of stuff... molecules... forces... whatever you like. Even as bodies, we aren't today who we were yesterday and we won't be that tomorrow. Nothing is permanent. Also unlike popular Westernized Buddhism, meditation isn't about levitation or super powers, it's simply about getting in touch with that "nothingness" which includes no cravings for the things that cause all of our suffering. This, of course, precludes the "karmic points chase" that Western Buddhism espouses, but that was basically a gimic to establish a moral code, much like that of Christianity or Islam. Once our "self" detaches from our current form, recognizes that we're nothing more than a temporary arrangement, and thus eliminates the cravings that lead to greed and violence, then the moral code isn't even necessary.
Short story even longer, it's not really a "faith" but a philosophy. There's no god or creator involved. And yet, understanding it requires quite a bit of spiritual development and understanding. In the end, it calls for the behavior that you describe. And, coincidentally, that most so-called Christians, claim to endorse,
until they go the Hitler route and claim their drastic actions AGAINST their fellow man are what God calls for... that their relationship with God is more important than their relationship with their brothers. So yeah, I definitely get what you're saying.
Furthermore, your explanation comes directly from a Cold War observation that communism is much more in line with Christianity than capitalism. But when you remove the issue of how we treat each other
from Christianity, then you can understand why it allows the carnage you mentioned in your intro. That's why I've always kind of figured that while the big picture ideas in the Bible are pretty good ones, there's no real point in quibbling over many of the specifics... that'll only get you into trouble by placing the importance of the people with whom we share this life secondary to our own personal beliefs about the next one.
I guess my point is, there are a million ways to say what you say. As far as providing any direction from there??? Well, let's put her up and see what happens.
I'll email W Charles about this discussion.
...and I am glad Ray did email me. I'm a big believer in synchronicity, and Ray's email reaffirms my belief, for I have been contemplating matters spiritual and religious (and the use of both terms is intentional) recently and considering writing a few posts on those matters over in my little area of the wide world interweb.
As for there once being good Christians here in Texas, I have a little joke for you. In high school, almost all of my good friends were either Catholic or Baptist, which made for some lively discussions of theological matters. About the only thing they could agree on was that since I was a Methodist, I was a heathen. :-)
It will take me a while to piece together some comments that will stay within the parameters established, but for now I offer the following...
* Have you noticed that some of our most notable philosophers today were formerly physicists? Science gave us the basic elements, then the ether, then molecules, then atoms, then the subatomic particles of neutrons, protons, and electrons, then quarks, and so on and so on. And let us not forget Schroedinger's cat and all other things relative. And then all these physicists become philosophers. I think this is somehow relevant to this discussion, for it seems that these former physicists have taken a more Zen-like outlook.
* My views about faith and religion, particularly as related to Christianity, are not typical, and I often say that they will eventually piss off just about everyone. :-)
* As far as I'm concerned, the vast majority of people have completely missed the point of the Christian Trinity.
* I also think that institutional Christianity has missed the point of the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. In other words, religion has obscured the spiritual message and how to make it manifest.
* My faith would not change if there is conclusive proof that none of the stories mentioned above are true.
* The basis for my Christian faith is what Jesus said and did (as described in the New Testament), and that can be described in near totality by one directive: love your neighbor as yourself.
* Some of my favorite authors on Christianity are Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, Elaine Pagels, and John Shelby Spong.
* Just last night my sister commented that Christianity and Tibetan Buddhism have much in common, but that you never hear much about that in the Christian church. I agree with her.
* If you like, I can post links to some of my posts describing my unconventional Christian views. However, I don't want to divert the direction of this discussion.
Thanks for the invitation to the party, Luth.
Thanks for joining!
Oh, I'm diggin' this... post those links in comments and I'll add 'em to the main page for as long as this thread stays active.
Here are the links:
http://cosmicwheel.blogspot.com/2004/12/some-christmas-eve-thoughts.html
(Addressing the story of the Virgin Birth and some of my basic beliefs.)
http://cosmicwheel.blogspot.com/2005/03/jesus-and-will-of-god.html
(Discussing my view that Jesus's death was a matter of following God's will rather than Jesus dying for our sins.)
http://cosmicwheel.blogspot.com/2005/03/more-on-easter-unconventional-views-on.html
(Examining the Resurrection. This is probably the most "unconventional" of the three.)
Ray and I have also had some other online discussions about matters of faith and Biblical interpretation.
I will say that my posts are Christian-centric and don't directly address the questions Bill raised, but they will give you an idea of where I'm coming from.
Thanks for your comments and links, WCharles! I will take some time to read them carefully. I think there is a lot we agree on.
As an academic by trade, I am more comfortable with questions than with certainties. And I very much appreciate your willingness to share what I take to be your own questions about Christianity meant for (and with) your faith community.
I am all for "love thy neighbor as thyself" too. As first principles go, you can't get much better than that one.
This discussion could lead in many different directions. Let me start by saying Bill's questions are very good and he really is getting down to the foundation of our differences. We talk about whether or not abortion is moral, gay rights, Islam. But, fundamentally, the question is about faith.
I consider myself a man of faith, the Christian faith. I work with people who have faith in Allah. I have talked to those who put their faith in Buddhism. And so on.
Bill, you ask if you are without faith because you do not believe in God or Allah or whatever name you choose. Or do you place your faith somewhere else. I will contend you do have faith. When you sit down, you have faith that the chair will hold you up. When you drive you have faith the driver behind you will not shunt you off the side of the road because he saw his favorite NASCAR driver do that in order to win the big race. You have faith that your fellow man has a sense of decency. You have faith that you can create the conditions of a peaceful, loving world yourself along with the help of other like minded people. That last one takes an awful lot of faith.
Bill, I would contend that you do have a god and have put your faith in that god. That god's name is mankind. Your religion is Humanism. Man is the center of our existence.
"When we put God before humans in the world, we reverse this trinity. The greatest of these, for many religious people, is "faith." This move, in fact, placing faith (or, as some might put it, a "personal relationship with God") as the primary thing in life, you can (if you are Southern Baptist, for example) forgive catastrophic human violence and cruelty." What does it mean to be a Christian? It should mean a follower of Christ, Jesus of the New Testament in the Bible. Those who supported slavery, and that did include Southern Baptists, perverted the teachings of Christ twisting scripture to fit their political ends (fits in with what I said in the above post). Their basic defense was the the book of Philemon seems to condon slavery. But, that was not Paul's intent in that book. Anyway, if you read the life of Jesus, didn't he focus on people? His message was more than just love as some would posit, but his concern was for people, both their spiritual lives and their physical lives. It can be said that some of us conservative Christians are too heavenly minded to be of any worldly good. And that is true to an extent. We focus on the spiritual but neglect to feed the body. The hunger pains make our message hard to hear. Bill, I will contend that a true Christian will focus his faith on God but by doing so will have a greater concern and impact on the needs of his fellow man. In the book of James it says that faith without works is dead. I can claim spirituality all I want, but if I neglect the needs of my neighbors, then my faith is worthless. That is what Christianity teaches.
Who pushed the Bill of Rights during the formation of our country? Christians, and especially Baptists. Who often runs soup kitchens? Churches. Where has much of our greatest music come from? The church.
"...the greatest virtue is not love for your fellow human, but faith in a higher power who makes one unaccountable to one's fellow humans." God does hold us accountable for how we treat our fellow man. Those who have used Christianity for political gain thus subjugating their fellow man, have, are or will pay a price.
How's that for a start?
Talk about your zeitgeist! This is a pretty fascinating article from the NY Times Magazine about evolutionary support for believing in God. Pretty interesting stuff, really. And not at all of the usual polarized sort.
Darwin's God
More food for thought, gents.
You say "zeitgeist," I say "synchronicity." :-)
With The Police getting back together, I think you phrasing is more...uh..au couran. Okay, now I'm officially out of non-english terms to describe whatever everybody seems to be talking about at a particular time.
:)
More substance soon. I am digesting wcharles posts and Ray's too.
Let me address Bill's last paragraph on accountability. I will use quotes from the New King James Version of the Bible.
Submission to government:
Romans 13:1-3
"1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same." It doesn't say to obey government authorities only if they make decisions you agree with, submission is unqualified. I oppose abortion, but it is the law of the land, therefore I must accept it.
Submission of family:
The Christian Home
Colossians 3:18-21
"18 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them.
20 Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord.
21 Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged." My wife used to quote v21 to me all time when my kids were younger. Wives have an obligation to husbands. Husbands have an obligation to wives. Children have an obligation to parents. Parents have an obligation to children.
Submission of employees:
Colossians 3:22-24
22 Bondservants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in sincerity of heart, fearing God. 23 And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men, 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for[a] you serve the Lord Christ.
Love for others:
I Corinthians 13:2
"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." One of the distinctions of a cult is building a belief system around an excerpt from the Bible or on external writings. A true Christian would accept all the Bible's teachings including the verse above in I Cor. 13. First who is this love toward? Well, reading the rest of that chapter would lead one to to think the love is shown toward other people. For example, it talks about rude behavior. This chapter speaks very specifically to our accountability to our fellow man.
True faith:
James 2:17-19
"17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my[b] works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!" God expects of us than simple faith. I can tell you guys all day long that I have faith, but my actions will demonstrate whether or not I am telling the truth.
Example of Works:
1 Timothy 6:17-19
"17 Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy. 18 Let them do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to give, willing to share, 19 storing up for themselves a good foundation for the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life." Seems the works expected here are doing things for our fellow man, giving and sharing.
Jesus as Servant:
Mark 10:45
"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” These are words spoken by Jesus, he claimed to be a servant himself. His purpose was to serve others and if we are to emulate him as Christians, should not this be our purpose, too?
So, I contend that one who is subservient to God and takes seriously the concept that we are created in the image of God (not as gods, but in His image) will be accountable to other humans.
Unless, of course, one feels that he interprets God's word more clearly than his fellow man. Then one is free to ignore those lesser needs of man in pursuit of the higher needs of the Lord.
I mean, if you and I differ in our interpretation of the Bible, then don't you have an obligation to stick with your interpretation even, and especially when it is in direct conflict with mine? That's faith, right? And what's it worth if you're not willing to defend it?
And in defending it, you answer to God, not me. After all, you might have to invade my home, even kill me in order to defend your interpretation. So in the extreme, you are no longer accountable to man, especially when man disagrees with your particular view of faith.
I accept your explanation of obeying man's laws even when you disagree with them, but that's only possible in the security of a stable, relatively peaceful society. Take away the progress we have made in that area, and all bets are off as far as being accountable to man.
And on an only slightly related note...
More and more I can understand why atheists are offended by the presumptive "there are no atheists in foxholes." I think it's actually the other way around. Just as many men are willing to throw out Jesus's teachings in a tough situation in favor of their own immediate needs as are likely to suddenly to convert to prayer.
To whom are these folks accountable?
I might be coming back to an abstraction here, but I am trying to come to some kind of fundamental claim. Let me put it this way:
What I object to is the *idea* of a higher consciousness.
The very idea, regardless of how it is believed to manifest, permits humans to suspend accountability to one another.
The same idea, applied to time, permits humans to suspend action in the moment in favor of a reward in the hereafter.
As a way to conduct our lives, I propose this alternative:
No Allmighty, just All.
No Hereafter, just Here, Now.
I don't necessarily have faith that living with these as fundamental truths would lead to Peace (capital "P"). I guess I have modest expectations in that regard. Part of this philosophy (not Buddhist in any explicit way) is to not recreate hierarchies of rightousness among humans either. Don't expect, give. Don't wait, do give now.
I do believe, though, that living with these concepts (All, Here, Now)as fundamental truths makes me a better person because when I live up to them I am focused on others more than on myself. It turns out to be a satisfying life.
Luth, I just spent a half hour typing you a reply and lost it. So, you'll get a shorter version. Lucky you.
"I mean, if you and I differ in our interpretation of the Bible, then don't you have an obligation to stick with your interpretation even, and especially when it is in direct conflict with mine? That's faith, right? And what's it worth if you're not willing to defend it?" My defense should not be with the sword, but by the consistent application of my faith. You and I differ in our interpretations of the Bible, but that doesn't give either one the right to force the other into submission through brute force. In the OT we see God instructing Israel to completely wipe out their enemies. No where in the NT will you find the same command. We are not Israel. God is not working the same today as He did in OT times. I see a distinction.
"I accept your explanation of obeying man's laws even when you disagree with them, but that's only possible in the security of a stable, relatively peaceful society." Look at the times when Paul wrote what I quoted above about being in subjection to the state. It was a time of Roman rule, it was not stable, secure or peaceful - the Jews were in subjection to them. Christians were fed to the lions. Paul was persecuted and eventually put to death for his faith. Yet, he never told Christians to fight back. He accepted and subjected himself to the state.
The church in China is thriving now because they are suffering persecution. The church in America is languishing in many areas because of the relative peace and properity. Persecution will force believers to make a stand, one cannot be ambivalent in that situation.
Relative to the foxhole comment, I believe that came out of WWI in which there were many foxhole conversions. But, by the same token one who is a self-starter may even more apt to rely on his own initiative in that situation. It is a generality, and bound to cause consternation. But, is the offense because of the presumption or because there truly are more conversions in those situations?
Luth, here's a hard question for you. If you believed our invasion of Iraq to be morally wrong, why did you not apply for conscientious objector status? As part of the invading and occupying force, you participated in our government's wrongdoing. Did you set your ideals aside and just do as you were told, maybe afraid of the consequences? Understand, I'm not condemning you. I struggled with these same questions a generation ago at the end of the VietNam War when I was eligible for the draft. Fortunately, my lottery number was not reached when they cut off drafting new recruits. So, I'm not sure what I would have done.
My point, none of us are perfect. A true humanitarian may refuse to participate in an unjust war. The Irish have used religion for political purposes for over a century now. Osama uses Islam for his own political agenda. The Irish are not the yardsticks for measuring Christianity. Neither am I.
Here is a quote from another blog that is apropos to our discussion.
"If there is no God with authority over His creation, everything boils down to power - who or what is going to inflict their standards and existence on the rest of the world and everything in it. If there is no God, then sentient life has no more "right" to be preserved intact than any other form of life. It is subject to the same Darwinian rules as everything else. There is no moral imperative to act for the total good of humanity because there is no reason why humanity should even continue to exist."
If there is no perfect entity we call, God, an entity that is sinless and perfect, then by what standard do we measure human kindness? How do we know what is "good"? I refrain from inflicting harm on Luth for his outrageous Biblical interpretations because my sense of biblical morality tells me it is wrong. That part of me that mirrors the image of God tells me it is wrong. Absent that biblical moral compass and I could do whatever I wanted to ensure my way of thinking survives and thrives. Besides that, Luth would probably laugh if acted menacingly.
You got me on the war. I've admitted here before that it is my own hypocrisy in that regard that causes me the most moral difficulty and lost sleep. I can rationalize by saying I didn't know we'd get an idiot for a commander in chief when I reenlisted and made a commitment that I then chose to honor in spite of that idiot. Or by taking solace in the fact that I honored a commitment I made to a president who failed to honor his but none of that matters - it's just rationalization. It is me and my morals doing what I thought was best - subjecting myself to the state if you will.
However, though I'm still reeling from that, I must take issue with the assumption that only religious people are capable of having morals. It's talk like that that makes me believe man invented God in order to claim one set of morals is better than another and not have to go through the rational process of debating and justifying those morals. (ie give me one rational reason, sans God, to ban gay marriage)
I won't argue that humankind has a reason to exist. But I will argue that the answer to that question is the same with or without God.
The fact is we do exist and so our instinct tells us to perpetuate that existence. Perpetuating our existence involves peace (war destroys) and that instinctive desire leads to figuring out how to maintain peace which eventually leads to morals. Is it too much of a leap to believe that even though there's no God in the mix?
The Humanist will argue that we are merely another species of animal, no different from an ape, though we may have higher reasoning power and speech capabilities. But, we are an animal none the less. Let's make an assumption that is true. Do other animals exhibit moral or immoral behavior? Are they capable of understanding morality? When I yell at my dog and she hangs her head putting her tail between her legs, is she exhibiting a moral reaction or a fear of punishment?
So, it the sense of morality intrinsic to our beings? Or is it the result of an external force?
Here is my first effort at responding directly to Bill’s initial questions and thoughts. This response might seem a bit disjointed, but I will do my best to bring it all together in the end. Not that I ever worry much about writing long posts or comments, but I know I don’t have to worry about that at all here, given that Luth sometimes writes posts that are even longer than mine. :-) We just like to be thorough. LOL
I begin by discussing my view of the Christian Trinity, which is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Another way to express it is God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit of God. What so many people either ignore or forget is that the Trinity is also called “the three in one.” In other words, too often the focus is placed on the “three,” and the true focus–the true meaning (in my opinion) is the “one.” Moreover, I believe that the three parts of the Trinity are not separate and distinct and no one part is greater than any other. There is plenty of scripture that supports this view, but citing right now would take up a lot of space, and I will save that for later. What I will say now is that how we Christians describe Jesus supports my view of the Trinity. Jesus is often described as Son of God and Son of Man. Jesus almost always called his ownself “Son of Man,” not “Son of God.” And yet, Christians and the institutional Church almost always focus on the divine part of that equation. And, by the way, the choice of “equation” is intentional. The way I see it, Son of God = Son of Man. So, ultimately my view of the Trinity is that there are not three, there is only one.
Thus, when I think of “trinity,” I do not think of any group of three, but rather an indivisible whole. That means that I would not describe “faith, hope, and love” as a trinity. I know I am in part splitting hairs here, but the concept of oneness I have described is such a foundational part of my faith that I feel expressing such a distinction is important.
That being said, I agree with Bill and 1 Corinthians 13 that love is “the greatest.” I will also say that I believe that faith and hope are elements of love (along with things such as patience, perseverance, courage, and more).
I also have a basic agreement with Bill that many people place a higher priority on faith than on love. To me faith is not an end. Faith needs to be manifested. Faith is not brought to completion with manifestation. And yet bringing something to manifestation–especially love–requires some degree of faith. I agree with what Ray said in quoting the passage from the book of James about faith without works being dead: “I can claim spirituality all I want, but if I neglect the needs of my neighbors, then my faith is worthless. That is what Christianity teaches.” Many Protestants shy away from this passage of James because of problems with the idea of salvation through deeds alone. In my “world of oneness” I also think that “works without faith are dead.” This is an oversimplification, but it is my way of saying that simply performing good deeds is not necessarily love.
I also basically agree with Bill’s discussion of accountability, but I also believe in God. So how is that possible? This is where my view of oneness comes back into play. In order to explain that, I have to describe another major part of the foundation of my beliefs. I discuss this in more detail in the posts on my blog which I listed in my second comment, but here is an abbreviated version. The teachings of Jesus–and thus the Christian faith–can be largely summed up in what Jesus his ownself said were the two greatest commandments: love the Lord with all of your being and love your neighbor as yourself. If a person does that, I don’t care what they believe. So, how does one go about loving God? Well, one way is to live according to God’s will. And just what is that will, and how does one follow it? The simplest answer is to love your neighbor as yourself. In addition, I believe that God’s will is for everyone to achieve true union–oneness, if you please–with God in this existence. Explaining the basis for that belief is another task that would take up too much space at this time, but I can do so later if need be. Many Christians would say that this is not possible, for man is an inherently flawed and sinful creature, and on and on. Well, I see things differently, and the reason is Jesus. As I discuss on my blog, to me the best term to describe Jesus is “exemplar.” Jesus was a human being, subject to the same flaws and weaknesses of any other human being. Yet Jesus achieved total union with God in this physical existence. Thus, through his teachings and his life, Jesus showed us how to achieve His two commandments. And I believe the primary way to achieve those Commandments is to love your neighbor as yourself. And that gets back to “Son of God = Son of Man,” for I believe that by loving your neighbor you are also loving God.
What this means in terms of Bill’s accountability analysis is that by being “accountable to one’s fellow humans” we are also being accountable to God.
That about wraps up this part of my response. I will close with something my mother said about “love your neighbor as yourself,” namely that there is a requirement to love yourself, which brings me to another of Bill’s thoughts, namely that “Because this is the mechanism - and the only one - for joy in one's own life. Give. To others. That's all we have.” It’s not quite all, due to “love yourself.” There can be no giving without some receiving, and that means that sometimes we have to receive love as well as give it.
In my next comment, I will address the point that Ray made about Bill having faith in something. Although I might not label that “something” in the way Ray does, I nonetheless agree with his basic point.
First, to Ray's most recent inquiry: We are animals, with instincts. As I mentioned, it is that instinct that drives our desire to perpetuate the species. As human animals, what with our great capacity for reason, we quickly associate perpetuation with peaceful coexistence. (Animals are only driven to perpetuate their OWN gene pool and thus compete, perhaps to the death, with other animals) So, based on that rather simplistic argument, the drive to create morals that allow for peaceful coexistence and therefore perpetuation of our species, is internal, purely instinctive. How's that.
Re: WCharles's posts - Now those are some ideas I can wrap my pea-brain around. I'll take a little liberty and interpret my way:
Jesus, though you won't hear it in the formal church, may well have been espousing Buddhism or Hinduism or Humanism. We've simply misinterpreted a lot of the signals. It's his life, his example that's really important. (a point on which I've always agreed) NOT the magic performed and any specific rituals associated with it. NOT some artificially prescribed behavior that claims to be in His example, but in reality turns out to the be the result of some lesser human's personal agenda (say, King James for example or Constantine)
Jesus understood enlightenment. Allow me a possibly blasphemous over-simplification: Jesus espoused delayed gratification. Something only possible among us humans with our capacity for rational thought. Living in accordance with this allows us to put aside immediate gratification in favor of thinking about how our actions affect others. Just like freeing ourselves of the cravings of this earth allows us to treat each other better by removing our own suffering - suffering that only arises when we focus on our personal needs and NOT the needs of others or the wishes of God. Sounds like the same things to me.
I'm afraid I haven't reached any more conclusions about the importance of organized religion, but I dare say my own brand of faith has become more firm as a result of this.
One more thing. I worked with a Science teacher in a largely Catholic, but officially public school. I often asked her where she stood on the whole creation vs. evolution thing. I admired her views and her ability to calmly explain them to me. She frequently told me that while the science classroom was no place for religious teaching... that creation was NOT a scientific theory and thus should NOT be taught in Science class, that no scientist she knew of believed that science could explain everything. While the goal of science, and it's empirical requirements does well in explaining the here and now, there's always something that came before and something that will come after that science can't explain because the empirical data is lacking. She explained it much more scientifically, but I always thought that was pretty cool... and pretty refreshing for a scientist. I only mention it here in light of Bill's article on Darwin's God. Ok, have a nice day fellas.
I regularly read the blog of a Lutheran theologian who happens to be a college provost. I say that to demonstrate he intellectually superior to me a lowly HR grunt in the electronics industry.
Here is part of a recent post of his that addresses part of Bill's original point.
"Many Christians share the agrarian view that rural or small town life is morally superior to life in the big city, that cities are places of corruption and temptation. And so they are, though there is sin enough in the country.
And yet, the Bible describes the paradise that awaits us as a City. We had our agrarian paradise back in Eden, a lone family, all by ourselves, surrounded by natural beauty. And that was indeed good, something to long for, now that it was lost. But to yearn for that kind of paradise is to look back. The paradise to come will be a City. The New Jerusalem will be inhabited by multitudes, from every nation and tongue. it will also be beautiful, but in a different way than Eden, with streets, walls, gates, mansions, and Bright Light.
St. Augustine wrote of the City of Man and the City of God. The City of Man, he said, is motivated by the love of self. We certainly see that in a metropolis like New York, with everyone hustling, everyone climbing up the career ladder, playing the vast economic network grounded in the quite-legitimate pursuit of one's rational self-interest. The City of God, though, said Augustine, is motivated by the love of God. Luther would emphasize that this must also entail the love of neighbor. So the City of God is about God's design that we should not be alone, that we should exist in a state of mutual dependence on each other--on God and on our fellow human beings serving each other in our diverse vocations--and that we should all be individualized members of one Body, as imaged in the Church.
These two Cities are superimposed on each other in our life here on earth, in cities like New York, where we see both sin and greatness, the self unbound and teeming multitudes huddled together. We can see glimpses of something higher. But this city, like everything else in our earthly lives including the country, will not last. We seek the City to come."
Here is the address for the blog.
http://cranach.worldmagblog.com/cranach/ Scroll down to the post entitled, "Of Cities".
Post a Comment