Thoughts on God.

I hope I'm not considered a weed in your garden, because technically, I probably don't fit under "Other".

But I didn't want to limit this discussion to a particular religion. This is not a "Preaching Thread", or "Conversion Thread", it's meant to be an inspirational, "Thinking Thread" Without a doubt, we all speak from the heart, and write from the heart.

Rules of the thread: I'm not going to limit this to "Sources". Quote what you will, from whatever source you think answers the question. But I will ask one thing here. Please do not use this thread to "Bash", or "Push", or use "Subversion".

Topic: If you can think of anything, Poetry, what you consider scripture, or any inspirational writing. What story, or exerpt, helps you get a picture of "God". Obviously, some of you will use a "plural" or have a religious philosophical view, rather than a belief in "God". But as long as the conversations are civil, please post. (BUT- please do not go railing on someone else's comments)

(My answer will be on the next post)

My answer: I was raised in a home without religion, and was a blank slate. I'm not going to discuss merits of one religion over another.

Let me preface my answer by saying, we all grope for answers, and life is one long quest (if we choose it) seeking to get closer to understanding truth, and God, and the mysteries of life. Our knowledge is imperfect. Our wisdom is imperfect. Even if God comes down and whispers the secrets of the Universe into our ears, we do not have the capacity to fully understand more than a thimble full of what he would say. That's very humbling, but true.

The most profound religious writing for me, comes from the Bible, in Luke chapter 15. I'm not going to quote it, but will give the gist of it. It is the story of the prodigal son. In the story, it compares God to an earthly father with two children.

In the story, one demands his inheritance, and goes out and squanders it on what they called riotous living, and that includes spending it on harlots and whatever pleasures were available at the time. The other kid stayed at home, and was dutiful.

So, a famine comes upon the land, and this lost son is sleeping in pig slop, and comes to his senses and decides to come home. But he doesn't ever imagine he can come home as a son, because of the life he led. Essentially he was a Jewish kid, who violated their laws to the nth degree. They weren't even allowed to touch pig flesh, and he wound up living in a pig pen.

So, he plans to become a servant, and not a "son", and will plead that his father hires him, and lets him sleep in the barn.

In the story, the father, who represents God, sees him afar off, and says, "Get him a ring and a robe, and prepare a feast...."

Well, the older brother gets ticked off. He says, "How long have I been serving you, and you never gave me food to have a party with my friends" (Paraphrased)

And THIS SON OF YOURS, has wasted his inheritance on harlots and riotous living, and now he comes home,and you throw him this big party.

Now, I'm going to explain why this story has meant so much to me. First, it tells me that God has two children. And I think this is a very profound thing, in that we all fit in one category or the other, to one degree or the other.

The strange thing about this story, was that it didn't matter where either child lived, because they were both lost. One was lost far away. The younger son came home and couldn't imagine being a son, only a servant. But the one who was living at home, never realized he was a son either, and was continually striving, because he identified himself as a servant.

He said, "I have served you all these years, but you never gave me..." In other words, in his mind, he was "EARNING" love acceptance, an inheritance. He felt he "earned it", meaning, he never felt his father gave it to him.

His father's answer was profound, "You were with me this many years...ALL THAT I HAVE IS YOURS" In other words, he was slaving for what he already owned. It's like your parent giving you a car as a gift, and you go out and get a job, and pay it back. Then it isn't a gift is it? He could have had a party with his friends at anytime, but he was so "Dutiful", he couldn't imagine his father would let him.

Another lesson. To a father, a lost son, and a found son are of equal value. If they are lost, the father doesn't despise them, they grieve for them. (Normal parents)

The story of the prodigal son, was the third parable in this chapter. But each one is about the same thing. All of us, mankind (male and female) have intrinsic value in the eyes of God. Everything he used as an illustration, would have made sense to that audience. In each case, it refers to something of value to someone. "Lost sheep", "Lost coin", "Lost son".

A lost gold piece is of no less value if it is lost, or dirty. It retains the same intrinsic value. This is something he older brother didn't get. The older brother disowned the younger, "This SON OF YOURS..." He is basically saying, "You are a fool for taking him back. He has let you down, and done stupid things. You should make him pay, and reject him forever for being so worthless." But that isn't the father's perspective.

Another lesson in this story is profound to me. It is saying that all of us are lost to some degree or another (through our perspectives).

It didn't matter whether we felt close to God or far from God, whether we were going to Temple, Mosque, Church, or Synogogue. And our foundness is not really a matter of our place in the world, but our view of God. In this case the story is saying that God thinks like a Father, not an angry drill sergeant.

The story isn't told from the son's perspective, but the fathers perspective. It was addressed to religious people, who made classes in their minds. "Righteous and Sinners".

The two sons: I will call Son number one, who is the oldest, "Religious Striving". I will call the second son, "Numbing" the pain of life by jumping into pleasure".

I think we all know what "Numbing" looks like. It's doing what you feel you got to do to make life seem bearable. And that can be a slippery slope that leads to pig slop.

Religious Striving is a little harder to define. It's not about "love of God". That's a misnomer. It's about "my view of me".
No matter what religion you look at, including my own, you will find that "religious striving" has always caused people to miss the mark. Religious Striving has caused people to do evil in the name of God, and demean, and despise. In a sense, religious striving is a mind focused on "Me", and not "God",

The Prodigal Son story shows a father who loves all of his children, whether they are home or out living in pig slop. Their value isn't less. They are either lost or found, but their value is such that the father longs for them wherever they are.

Religious Striving is "ME" trying to prove something to othes, and it always leads to strife. It is my building a tower of Babel to "make a name for myself"- which according to that story, was their "Cheif" motivations. Anything I do whose cheif motivation is to make a name for "Myself", may sound spiritual, but it is really "SELF" centered. If my motive is "God's name", that is different. But there is really a fine line between the two. The motive of the Babel tower, was not, "to bless God, or honor God", but to honor and bless "the builder"-me.

So, as I see this whole scripture. My idea of God, is different than what it was before. I can't see anyone as less than me. They have the same intrinsic value that I have. If not then I am a hypocrite, and where can I base my own hope?

My life's goal is balance. Not to "strive" to prove that I have value, when my value is imputed (given to me from God), and is not from my striving. And my other goal is to not be so foolish as to spend my life in pig slop.

A robe and a ring, were symbolic of "authority". In other words, the lost son came home to be a servant, but his father restored him to his full authority as a son, and celebrated his coming home. That was a far cry from the idea of God I had. Even after being an atheist, I imagined someone who would never accept me. I'm kind of glad he had a kid who already proved that God will accept kids who spent their lives in pig slop, because that's how I felt at that time.

Feel free to share your own inspirational story, of what impacted your own view of God. I for one promise I won't throw any stones if it is completely different than my own, and I hope noone else here will. Thanks for listening.

Okay, let's re-direct the question.

I wrote this hoping people would give their own observations of how they percieve God, apart from dogma, without preaching. And I do not find it threatening if people quote from different books to explain their views.

But that isn't necessary. I could have asked the question, "If there were no books at all, and you could only base your views on the observation of yourself, nature, and the Universe, what observations could you make concerning your view of God?"

I have friends from all walks of life, Hindu friends, Muslim friends, Jewish friends, and "Other" friends. I find it rather amazing, how close, instead of how far apart many people's view of God is.

And perhaps to make this easier, we can take "People" out of the equation, since wars, poverty and divisions are generally People generated problems. (Well we could have a few agreeable people in the world) And if we had to deduce the nature of God only from observation, and looking at the seas, skies, and all creatures, would our view of God be different than it is?

Another thought. How many religions believe in sowing and reaping in some forms. Isn't that what Kharma is? It's a philosophy that our good and bad works have repercussions. All three monotheistic religions believe in the concept. Most pantheistic religions believe in the concept. It is one of the most universal messages in Greek, Norse and Roman mythology.

The reaons I'm saying this, is that I think we have some very common concepts that are universal. Even if you believe in interruption of sowing and reaping, (mercy) the fact that it is an interruption, implies all of those sayings, "Whatever goes around comes around..."...etc.

Sowing and reaping is the most universally accepted belief, and even non-religious people believe in it to a great degree.

My question is this. Do you think this is learned through observation, or is it possibly hardwired into our brains like a bird has a homing device that tells them when and where to fly south in the winter?

DrRita said:

I believe when one is born, the idea of right and wrong is imprinted on our psyche( soul, consciousness or whatever you want to call it) by God. Whether one is born into eastern, western, pagan or other religious persuasion, it comes with birth. How it affects humanity's world view and belief system is demonstrated in the various reward/punishment spiritual economies present in the religions of the world. Even if a religious belief system may not recognize sin as sin in the same way as the Judeo-Christian belief system does (some discount sin altogether) there is still some part of that religion which will deal with good/bad behavior and the consequences. I know some of this is learned and obviously plays a big part in how we deal with our guilt. But there is that basic "seed" which is not learned, only cultivated.

I think it's interesting that no matter how much we want to wipe "sin" and the idea of a god who rewards and punishes from the consciousness of mankind, there are huge problems with guilt and the repercussions of our behavior which plague man. Anyway, that's a whole can of worms.

Click to expand...

I tend to believe we have a homing device of sorts. But I don't believe the conscience is an "exact" device, which is why parents are so important in honing it. And a conscience can be twisted at such an early age, we might excuse selfishness at a very early age without feeling guilt. In a sense, it is a programable thing that is as much a problem if it is out of whack.

So, you have tons of people feeling guilty about things they shouldn't, and tons of people not feeling guilty when they should. But it is amazing what Universal values we have instilled in us from a young age. Even a small child gives away they know when they lied, because they look away. They don't have to be in a religious family where "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is stamped over the fireplace. In any family that is true. Why should we feel guilty about lieing if we don't even have that value taught to us? It's hardwired IMHO.

Nique Zoolio said:

This is a very interesting conversation.
I think that a belief in a definite good and a definite bad is a belief in something absolute - some final court of final judgement. I am not sure that absolutes exist, but of course I cannot be sure.
I think it was Nietzsche who first made the point of how truth is linked to power. I think he was right up to a point. For example, if Hitler had won the war, would we all be thinking how much of a very nasty nasty man he was? I doubt it. We'd all be making paper mache models of him. Or something similar.

I'm not saying that I am a cold hearted pragmatist - I am simply saying that the good/bad of our actions, our lives, are contingent upon the future and not absolutes.

Click to expand...

Nietzsche was somewhat of an imbittered soul, with many tragedies. In a sense, a theology based upon hurt is often an imbittered theology, which I think he had. In my mind he railed against what he percieved as injustice, which is why he is most popular in cultures where war, or injustice has occurred. However, it's a baby/bathwater philosophy in my mind. Step away from mankind, and go into a mountain, or along the shores, and put mankinds inhumanity out of your mind, and suddenly the world is a more beautiful place.

Who can look at breeching dolphins, or flitting sparrows, or majestic eagles, or even listen to a baby's breath, without having a positive view? So, much of life is focus, and I think Nietzshe was wounded, and it showed in his writings.

Outlook is so dependent upon that whcih a man purposes to focus on.

Nique Zoolio said:

Most certainly, Nate.
I agree with your points on Neitzsche completely, but it doesn't detract from his basic point of truth being tied to power, which many less bitter people have picked up (Foucault etc) to try to make the world better without basing that on an absolute.

Nique.

Click to expand...

Let's go back to the "What if Hitler Won" argument. Then we'd all be twisted and believe dark was light and light was dark.

That argument doesn't ever hold true. If you've looked at every repressive government, they've tried "Re-education" and "mind control". If we were lab rats, and that worked, then those societies would last forever. People would have their internal wiring reprogramed, and that would be the end of it.

However, you'll notice that in those governments, force remains a means of keeping people "on the right track". If their internal wiring told them, "Dark is light and light was dark", eventually you wouldn't need any more pitchmen. You wouldn't need secret police. You wouldn't need to burn books and throw people in prison. I can tell you from what I know, this tactic has never worked. What you wind up with is an attempt to use a carrot- reward correct think. Or you use a tazer, and zap everyone as soon as they disagree. So, you have what I'll call, "External Motivation".

Fear becomes a tool, because honestly, Pharoah needs slave drivers to keep slaves working.

You can't love Neitzsche without retaining bitterness. If you seek to purge yourself of bitterness and anger, Neitzsche automatically becomes less attractive. He resonates with a state of simmering anger. "Tell it like it is brother Neitzsche." Life is unfair.

Here's a really interesting Neitzsche thought. Job had a Neitzsche moment when he was suffering. Around chapter 7, he pretty much begins saying God hurts the just, God shoots his arrows into me...God poisons...why don't you kill me...it was unfair that you let me be born...come down lucy, you've got some splainin to do. (Ricky Ricardo humor)

The difference between Job and Neitzsche is the point at the end, where Job stops looking at "His friends", who were tormenters, and begins looking at "Nature", which was the object lesson.

There's order- boundaries, limits.
There's mercy- animal instincts, nurturing instincts.
There's beauty and tenderness-flowers, and infants
There's power...etc. Can the nature of God be percieved without books and theology? Absoluely.
In fact, Nature is the most spiritual book imaginable, if people can interpret it correctly. I am convinced we can perceive God through nature. However, our "bent", will color that. I had a terrible time being an atheist, when I was an atheist, because every time I saw something right, and logical, I had to go back to formulaic arguments, "What about starving people, and why do bad things happen to good people," which are honest questions we aren't hurt by asking, if we really want answers, and not Archetypes to fashion our opinions with.

But I became an atheist through bitterness, and what I percieved to be injustice and unfairness. Was I wrong in thinking life was unfair and unjust? Well it was unfair and unjust to me in my opinion. I didn't get a vote what family I was born into, what body I was given, what station in life I was in...etc. However, my theology became like Neitzsche. I began saying, "No one really loves...they just mutually abuse each other..." Well, I changed my mind. Love is real. I know, because I love, and at times sacrificially. But I've been loved as well. So my theology changed because my sphere of reality changed. But while I lived in a situation where my experiences were bad, it was easy to base my theology only on "my" experience. I must have seemed pretty imbittered to those who had a different experience, because at that time I never felt "unconditionally loved". Well, some people did, and I resented that, and I think my atheism was also somewhat of a protest. Well, I'm over it now.

At any rate, I'm enjoying the conversation, and can't wait to see where it goes.

TheWriteTaylor said:

Miguel Ruiz is a philosopher/writer whose ideas I like. He talks about how reality is a construction of agreements between humans and that we are taught these agreements as children. The sky is blue because a long time ago a group of people agreed to call it the color "blue" and have taught their children to accept this agreement.

Likewise, I believe we are taught what "sin" is and what is right and what is wrong. A person who grows up in a household that values stealing is not going to think twice about robbing a person until they learn or experience that such a value is "wrong".

I think we are born with the instinct for survival. We know to avoid those things that would destroy us and value those things that would help us survive (Nature). However, what those things are have to be taught to us (Nurture).

Just my thoughts. Sorry if this doesn't come out as clear as I think it does. I haven't had any coffee yet so I'm a little foggy.

~Kisha

Click to expand...

No, your point is clear and well taken. Some things are subjective. I'm color blind, so I have my own view of the world. I don't see anything like others do, and wonder what I'm missing. But I know what "blue" is to me. I don't know what "blue" is to you.

But again, your point is actually quite spiritual. When I say, "Our knowledge is imperfect...our wisdom is imperfect..." that is a spiritual concept. It means that we don't have the capacity for "pure understanding" on anything. In fact, the author said, "We see dimly..." We'll, the author is one of the most respected person, who wrote a good deal of books considered scripture by a large segment of religious people.

So, the most knowledgeable people said in translation, "We can only understand a thimble full of truth". Well, that's true. I may try to fully understand my wife, but I'll never be a woman, so I understand in "part". If I say, "I love you," that could mean, I like you, or I want something from you, or that I'm willing to lay down my life. And I may feel that way one day, and not love so much on Tuesday.

I like something a guy named James said, "We all make many mistakes..." I buy that. The best of the best make mistakes. We may try not to, but we do. And if I don't understand what you mean by blue, it's not because of lack of effort, but it's simply because I see a different blue.

god0sgirl said:

takes on God, this sounded like something i wanted to post under but now i find myself not quite sure what to say. I'm christian so it's probabbly pretty obvious what i believe. if you really want to read more about it my confessional statment is posted here http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/art/t/e/teller/teller.html if not that's fine too. So agian back to the question God to me. How i see Him, what helps me get a picture of Him. To me God is so many things that He's indescribable, but some of the things i see more in His character are what i will write about, i suppose. I see beauty, alot of beauty. Like tonight for instance, the fireflies were buzzing my open door way and the only thing i could think was that they were so beautiful and how much i appreciated them and how much i loved God because i knew that i loved fireflies and i know that he allowed them to be there at that time for me to see. I think He may have sent them. that probabbly sounds sappy to most of you. Yeah so i'm only seventeen and most of you probabbly at this moment are thinking that i've got a pie in the sky view, and you might be right, but i know, i mean really know, that God does that kinda stuff. Anyway. I suppose i see Him as a father too, alot i think. I never knew my father you see and so He's sorta become the father i never had growing up. (not that i'm anywhere nears grown) That's the reason i chose the email i have. God0sgirl...it's suppose to be like God's Girl or daddy's girl ya know. I see in Him a refuge. I get a lot of hard times coming my way and i don't think i would be here anymore, my deppresion would have taken my life long ago, if i hadn't had the refuge in Him that i could seek after. There's a verse in the bible that says something like that "You are my refuge and strength." i think, i never was very good at remembering scripture. (though i am getting better thanks to private school required catchecism...lol) i think that there's alot of writings out there, besides the bible that help me develop my view of Him. The Narnia series my C.S. Lewis is one. Then The Lord of the Rings, oddly enough. Tolkien was a christian and i think some of his beliefs might have bled through into his work..but just a theory so don't shoot me, lol. Hmmm....the chronicles of Prydian...i don't know why that one does, kinda of odd because the man who wrote it wasn't even christian, but he was Jewish so i suppose that explains our similar ethical views that bled through in his writing to inspire me. I don't get so inspired by things that are written for other religions, even when they touch on what i believe to be truth, and i don't think that's good, but i supppose i've grown caloaused to them, worried that i will do something which i believe will ofend my God, if that makes a lick of sense. Any way, i sometimes see him as being a little like Atticus in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird. Not all the tiem, like atticus was distant where i think God would be near, but sometimes, like when he explains to the children about courage. My image of him is sometiems even shaped in stories that sort of leave him out. I look at Arthur Miller's classics The Crucible and Death of a Salesman and i see him there. The Crucible may be easier to understand why i see him while Death of a Salesman might seem like quite a mystery but, *shrugs* i suppose i'm odd that way. I suppose i see him, and his image in my mind is shaped by his intresting abscences in this plays. he's there in the Crucible, but not as strongly as the devil and wickedness it seems. There seems to be something in that. To me it sort of takes shape as an image of life without him, or a corrupted life that is claimed to be lived with him when it really isn't. The Crucible strikes closest to my heart though i supose. You see, before i became a christian i was Wiccan. i also played Abigal in Lenawee Christian's Production of the Crucible last year. I realy got to know teh character and i had my past to work with and it all sort of jumbled in my mind. i think most of my images of him though are see not in that which i read, (though that helps considerably) but in the quiet times in which i spend talking with him. I tell him about my day and imagine him as the father or husband you listens eagerly. That's another thing i imagine him as often, a husband (and that may sound weird since i just compared him to a father, but trust me it's not screwed up like that in my mind) There's a song it says "but to say that my bride isn't worth half the blood that i spilled." that allways get's to me. Because you seee what the song is saying is that me (or you or whoever) whom christ died for and whom i've become the bride of (well teh church has become the birde of) is worth so much and i can imagine God rebuking someone who degraded me and made me feel worthless, he is, afterall, my protector. Well, i'm not sure if i stayed completley on topic, but i'm sure your getting tired of hearing me babble on about my romantic notions of what God is (because i do know that he can be a terrible devestating being as well when the time calls for it, a time to love and a time to hate and all) so i'll go now.

Click to expand...

Well, for what it's worth, I'd love having a daughter like you. That was a beautiful post. (Just thought you'd like to know.) I still have two single sons, but I'm sure you'll find one in your area that suits you.

You have a rather beautiful perspective of life. And I relate, barely having know my own father, and what little time I spent with him was always very strained. Hang in there. I'm forty-seven, and I'm still working on getting to know my daddy in heaven.

Nique Zoolio said:

I am enjoying the conversation, and I would like to close this post on this statement.

I will never judge anyone to be right or wrong. If you believe in anything, it is certainly not my place to say that what you believe is false. Above I suggested that we have opposing notions of human nature, upon which our worlds seem to be built. I do not suggest that mine is right, or that yours is wrong. It goes against everything I try to achieve for me to suggest that I know what is right and wrong.
I am simply trying to learn all I can from whomever I can. You should know that I fully respect your beliefs and that I will go on to, no matter what they are.

Nique.

Click to expand...

Nique, first allow me to appologize for something that wasn't clear. My mind works in metaphors and word associations. In word associations, it's like my mind will go well beyond answering a question. Rather, when I hear an interesting message, it will spark thoughts on something or a variety of things, and I'll ramble. So when I say "you", it is most often generic and not specific, as in "you"-"people in general".

This might be a cultural thing, or regional thing, where it is a more accepted way of saying things. But again, because I am answering a specific person in a post (Although sometimes I'm not- I'm generalizing), I need to be more specific whether I'm addressing them as the poster (you) or a broader audience, (people in general). That's weird, because I take for granted, I even use "you", as "we" or "me"

example- yeah, sometime you just want to eat ice cream when you are depressed- as in, I have an urge to pacify sadness with endorphin releasing food. I think that is a common thing. We humans tend to want to do that.

I'm all about respect, and I want it to be known. And like you, I don't see people as one dimensional, but rather complex and interesting.

Being that I have an opinion on everything (lol) I have never presumed people would agree with me in many things. And that hasn't bothered me, because for the most part, I can separate perspectives on issues from who a person is, and see that (politics/religious affiliation...etc) as only one small aspect of who they are. I find you to be an enjoyable person, and someone I'd enjoy talking to face to face as much as on a board.

god0sgirl said:

thank you for replying...and thank you for the complements. you seem like a really nice person, i was so excited to find this thread started. *hugs* talk to you latter

Click to expand...

You are welcome. Hope to see you around.

Nate