Losing one's religion

Hi Bob,

Without getting into the details of each particular case (Job, Abraham, Jacob, Moses,…) I wonder if we step back a minute if we can determine what it is, if anything, that you have against my view.

So leaving the book of Job and all of these other texts aside, do you think there is something inherently wrong with my belief that human beings are made and called to Godlikeness? Granted, this idea has been twisted, for example, into justifications for exploiting nature, among other things, but if we understand how God rules is it wrong to think that we are made and called to take up that rule? To be God’s representatives on earth with the full wisdom and power of God?

That’s my basic faith, and it’s a faith that I believe is expressed from the very beginning (Genesis 1) to the very end (Jesus, who as a human being does impossible things and calls us to perform even greater deeds).

I also believe it would be a serious blow to a human being who earnestly believes this to suddenly have, or feel like, this belief has been undermined. That the call to fulfill this role has been revoked.

This is why I’ve been talking about this in a post about “Losing one’s religion”, primarily because I see the undermining of our status/station as humankind as a serious religious loss. One that doesn’t register often enough on our religious radars even though it is a constant theme, I think anyways, in the Bible, and in the book of Job especially.

So anyways, this is more of a point blank question on human Godlikeness, that we are made and called to image God or to be like God. Do you agree? Do you accept that this is, or should be, a fundamental part of the Judeo-Christian faith?

Once we’ve established this common ground then we can talk about what it means to be like God.

Does it mean confronting God when we perceive injustice, that we are called to stand up to God even? What kind of rule does it entail? Something like a democracy or more like a benevolent dictatorship?

It will also raise the question of the disparity between humankind and God. Or how that disparity is to be characterized. Is it one where God’s wisdom is inaccessible to ours, as I believe you (or at least others on this site) have suggested? Or is it more of an ontological disparity, such that God is God and we are only ever God’s image? If the latter, which I would suggest, is there any wisdom or power that is beyond our grasp? As mentioned already, the example of Jesus seems to suggest not. While he is the son (or image?) the wisdom and power he holds is the same as the father’s.

I agree with you that our children are gifts and not possessions. That we must not cling to the gifts in our lives as though they were possessions but, rather, once the gifts are called back we must deliver them up (as Abraham delivered up Isaac) so that they remain gifts. (Or so that they keep the ‘grace economy’ running.)

But I don’t think this is the teaching of the book of Job. This is perhaps what Job clings to in the beginning, or is what allows him to keep faith in God when his children and wealth are taken away (indeed, he declares as much as you note), but I certainly do not see this consoling Job in the end. Job knows this from the beginning. Thus it seems likely that he requires something else for consolation in the end (i.e., a confirmation of his status/station as humankind).

Also, I would argue that Job receives his children back in the end and that they are more beautiful as well. Job does not have to ‘move on’ but rather he is fully restored and then some. The book teaches resurrection of the dead, of Job and of Job’s children. (It is notable that the LXX adds a final line to the text after Job’s death: “And Job experienced the resurrection of the dead,” or something to that effect. But indeed, that the children are resurrected is not something I can easily prove.)

I think you will find that my basic stance is that we are called to know what IS, nothing more first of all, but that. It is about the Isness of experienced life and “God” is the ineffable aspect which surrounds and works through us (“For in him we live, and move, and have our being”). This is in my view the mystery behind all theistic religion. Job is a classic attempt to deal with basic questions of life, although there have been a number of editors working on the story, keeping it fresh and giving it more and more depth. The Book-Religions are primarily spiritual literature evolved out of verbal traditions and gathered in a way that a timeless story takes us through a number of spiritual experiences by which we come to be aware of what IS.

That is basically the “godlikeness” of humanity, but the clothing we give our gods is human. We are continually anthropomorphising phenomenon, whether its the behaviour of animals or the mysteries of nature, we assume intent in what we perceive as being “done to us” rather than understand that things happen, and that we can even work out the chances that they will happen. I remain by my stance that whatever challenges or breaks down our natural trust in life is “evil”, not whether children suffer or only adults, or even only men, or whether ten or ten thousand people suffer. It is what these things do to our basic and necessary faith in life, whether we are encouraged or disparaged by what we experience.

Whether there is another aspect to our awareness, that is something I’m not sure about. Some hope that our awareness will carry on after our body has perished, but we seem to be very much our bodies. There is a chance that our awareness or our soul/spirit isn’t in our cells but elsewhere – but where is proof of that? Our prime task is to understand what IS and to live NOW. That stands contrary to what you have written it seems.

I think we spend too much time worrying about our status without knowing basic issues like, who am I really? What is this “I” that I throw about and am so proud of? Is it more than a grammatical necessity? To what degree am I only a part of what is happening? These are old issues, I agree, but issues that haven’t really been cleared up. Western society seems in a hurry to get past them and move on to more important things which will please our ideas of individuality and grandeur, but we are trailing a tail of unsolved questions behind us over which we are continually stumbling, because our movements are necessarily spiral movements.

In so much as we can overcome the endless thoughts and our mediocrity, we could become aware that the Ineffable is indeed in what we live, and move, and have our being, and come to appreciate the nature of life as this planet, since that is what we are collectively. As such, we are all “God” disguised as single human beings, playing a game called existence. There is a lot of promise in this life, if we could overcome our preoccupations which are slowly taking the floor out from under our feet, destroying the shield in the stratosphere, and polluting the air and water we live off of. We seem to be struggling for survival, which means in a hierarchy of needs, that we are far removed from self-actualisation at present. However, awareness, waking up to reality, seems to be necessary in that situation and might even bring the quantum-leap with it.

I think that life does provide a basic law, basically the golden rule, and on that one can build the basic eight or ten commandments which ensure a collective existence. It is essentially the way it is. Without this basic law, there is no collective existence but only survival of the fittest. I have often spoken out in my “chamber experience” against the fact that it doesn’t always work out, but I have almost always found myself confronted with the role I myself play in the situation I am bemoaning. So I think it is important to have an address where we can bring these petitions, but I have to be aware that it may be thrown back at me.

I think that you are projecting something onto the story which may have substance, but I can’t see it at present. If the rule with our children or other relatives is the way we have described, then it is so in all stories, if they are to be true to life. Also, even if Job would have more children, the first are still taken from him. There is no magic here performing the reappearance of our favourite watch, believed to have been smashed but the magician. Those who are gone are gone forever – Job knew that and celebrated his new children, but the shadow of those lost still remains.

"So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses.
He had also seven sons and three daughters (he previously had seven sons and three daughters)
And he called the name of the first, Jemima; and the name of the second, Kezia; and the name of the third, Keren–happuch.
And in all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job: and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren.”

Take care

Thanks for the detailed response Omar. Let me pick up on a few crucial themes.

Justice.

I agree with you that “the time of retribution can be anytime.” My points about justice were 1) that it is purely retribution, that is, justice is the moment when the righteous (at last) receive their reward and the wicked their punishment. And more importantly 2) that justice is not the end-all and be-all of God’s will.

When I say justice “comes after” my intention is not to pin it down but to simply say that it is retributive, where the ‘re’ implies an afterward-ness. Justice may come at anytime as you point out, but it must come after the good or bad deed has been committed. (As I tried to put it, justice is always a response to a human response to God’s original call.)

I think a better term for God’s will, or the end-all and be-all of God’s will, would be grace, or love, or something like that. Such a will can employ justice but it can also revoke or withhold it (primarily in the case of forgiveness and patience). I also very much like the term wisdom. Indeed, wisdom is with God from the beginning. She is the first of God’s ways…

Satan/the satan.

I think the scene between the satan and God is critical to understanding the book of Job, and that it is also open to vast interpretation. I also think it is easy to bring our preconceptions to the table, as you may do in your reading, and that these might mislead us. For instance, you seem to suggest without any real textual support that the satan is “a rebel at heart,” or that it is already engaged in a rebellion against God. I think such a move conflates the satan with Satan, and that this is a dangerous move given how it impacts everything else.

In fact, most commentators say that the satan here is a faithful servant of God. A divine functionary and not a rebel at all. I would be more inclined to this reading than to yours given how God responds to the satan and how the satan responds to God. (We can tell that the satan is bitter, but the bitterness is not directed against God. And God can almost be read as tender toward the satan. As trying to console… “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one like him on earth! A good man, righteous and true…”, i.e., “Take heart in his example…”)

Natural ‘evil’.

I get your view now. It is not that evil is only in our perception, as I first construed it, but that evil can only be recognized once there is human perception. Is that correct? I still don’t think there is natural evil though. A lion eating a lamb isn’t evil, it’s simply being a lion. Same with the sea wiping out a village of innocents. It’s just being the sea.

Now if we define evil as suffering of innocents, pure and simple, then yes, there would be evil in these instances. But I’m hesitant to make that identification. I feel that evil isn’t just the fruit, like the suffering of innocents, but that it comes from an evil heart, you know?

Wildness.

I often wonder why this term doesn’t have a stronger presence in theology. All the talk is about freedom, yet the Biblical view is not that we are created free but that we are wild, and that we are to be subdued or cultured in our wildness (not oppressed, although it quickly becomes this in a fallen world). What is more, it is human beings who are tasked with the work of subdual.

Is the world wild by design? I don’t think so. In Genesis 1 God never says “let there be water” but rather the water is already there from the beginning. In other words, it is not creatio ex nihilo but rather God started with elements that were already there and that are wild. (Something akin to the chaos monster of other creation myths.)

God’s first words are words of subdual. They subdue what is there and harness the power of what is there to create. What is created is wild, yes, but not in virtue of its design but because of what it comes from, the material that it is made of (dust and water I would say). God’s words of subdual create a garden, or a cultured/cultivated space in the wilderness. They also create new creatures in that domain which can quickly fall back into wildness (plants, animals, human beings even). The ongoing work of humankind is to expand that garden space. To subdue everything that God created but that is or can always fall back into wildness.

This raises your point about how righteous ones are to be immune to the wildness of creation, e.g., to the venom of the snake. How so? It all comes down to our power to subdue, our potential to speak the word that tames, and that in taming brings creation under or into our control. The sea will part or calm itself at our command. The earth will rise up and protect us when we ask it to. Just as that originally wild, not creation but substratum (?) responded to God’s word and empowered it.

Now, there is an important difference. That is, it’s not the innocent per se that are immune, but the wise. The ones who speak words of righteousness and can subdue. The innocent, while innocent, may not have what it takes to subdue the serpent or the sea.

Problem of Evil.

What does all of this have to do with the POE?

It’s a wild world by nature, not by design. God is working within this context and so are we. It takes wisdom to subdue the wildness, to tame it, and human beings were made and called to do this work. But we also, instead of subduing, oppress. We have turned on the world and we have turned the world against us. We have turned on each other. We have turned on God. We have not just reverted back to wildness but we have become evil. With evil hearts committing evil deeds.

Can God subdue it? Can God get it back under control and back on course? God’s word has always been there, from the beginning. It seems to me that the onus is on us to empower it, to take the power away from evil purposes and return it to where it was always meant to be.

It seems to me that it has always been on us. We can’t blame God or wait for God to fix our messes. That’s not the way it works.

Anyways, just some thoughts for what they’re worth!

Hello Aly,

Justice

Justice cannot be a simple moment when someone is given his or her due, what they deserve. Absent of that moment, the idea of what is just remains, even if never fulfilled. The Good, Plato may have said, is not realizable here on earth but it doesn’t have to be for it is as idea that it perdures.
As an idea, justice is in every action of our will. As Socrates may have said, we do what we think (idea) is just. We do what is right. So justice can and does permeate every movement of a being. You may not see it as justice because I think you are moving into a strictly judicial process model. But that should not be the definition we use. God is much broader and so should the ideas we associate.

Justice need not come only after a deed has been committed (an eye for an eye…) for as Jesus taught, it could be everything we will (do onto others…) which would require your thoughts into everything you do and even how you think. In Jesus view, even thought becomes a deed, so when are we not under judgment? When are we free from the idea of justice?

As for Grace, I must admit that I myself thought of editing my last response to talk about it. Here is what I would say. Grace is of God. Grace is a Gift. Nothing in us earned us God’s favor. It was His Grace. And if a man lacks this blessing, God’s Grace, you could say that he is cursed. Grace is the good in itself. So too should we see the suffering of innocents as an unconditional evil- if I cannot justify why something bad is happening to me then it is not just something bad (like falling off a bike), but something evil, for we do not know why or why not, for it strikes us indiscriminately.

Satan/the satan.

You say that my “rebel at heart” description of Satan lacks textual support. That is fine. It was just a characterization of Satan, or how I think the Bible presents Satan. In the OT his role is more passive. You might even say that he is a lackey of God, an angel who nonetheless has a very strange role as an accusser. But as we roll along to the NT Satan does take on a role much more indenpendent of God. Long gone are the little chats between the two. Now you have a comming war between the forces of Satan and the forces of Jesus. But from Genesis to Apocalypse, what I see is a being that stumps the plans by God. He temps, successfully, Adam and Eve; he challenges, and some might say with reason, the distinction of righteousness as something other than vulgar self preservation; and in an epic conflagaration we find him as the adversary of God, not just the accusser of man.
This is how I see it, but I think that I have better scriptural support to draw this characterization than you do in drawing the duality “satan/Satan”. And we already discussed this before for your thesis.

Natural ‘evil’.

I understand how you, that there should be a connection between evil and a human heart behind it…but is it really that different? Suppose a man that takes a baby and smashes his skull against a wall because the baby is a jew…now would be a deed beyond justification. Nothing that man could say could justify his deed. It is a deed that comes from a heart that is hardened against the image of God in the child, the child’s spirit and most importantly, the child’s innocence. Now we look at Afrika and that starving child sucking on a dried tit. We could say that the lack of rain is not evil in itself and that it is just a weather pattern consistent with the region and the time of year, or even greater cycles. Maybe we are simply going through a periodic 50 year dry spell in a 200 year cycle. If God could do nothing about then there is no evil, and God is just impotent. But if God is capable of changing even this pattern and does not then he is responsible for that child’s suffering. That is the argument in it’s purest form. Able but unwilling, or unable and willing. Weak or Callous, take your pick, but neither one is usually accepted and so the POE.

Wildness.

I agree with your characterization of creation as something that perhaps contained properties not created by God, and that it is something meant to be subdued. For a time I thought that this could explain Satan as a virtual emanation from that wild material, pure brio, pure wildness. But the more I studied the Bible what I saw is Satan as a materialists, as a sophist, using reason against itself, bringing up the contradiction of the world…Satan speaks about what is in fact the case. God speaks of what is available only through faith.
While it is attractive to speak of subduing something in us, like Paul, I have come to the belief that this was never meant for us and that we treathen our health if we try to subjugate that other part of us, that natural brio. That if you lose it you live a life in shadows, in grey hues rather than in the full spectrum of the raimbow.
Plato asked once who was better: A man who could do no wrong or the man who could. I think that God would have agreed…otherwise why use clay at all? Why a race of men instead of a race of angels? Something is in us that is wild, but it should be tempered by reason, yet not eliminated compleately by it.

Do you mean by this that it is our mission to discern what is lasting or stable in life? Like the Greek sages who postulated water, fire, etc, as this enduring substratum? And that in discerning what ‘IS’ we will have established a basic connection or trust in life, or in what matters, the breaking down of which is evil or is caused by evil?

Or do you mean something more along the lines that what IS is constantly changing, and that as human beings our responsibility is to stay on top of this, and to be aware of what IS at any time so that we can live properly (or informed) in the NOW?

Neither (if either approximate your position) would be contrary to what I say, I don’t think. While I would say that we are more than just metaphysical speculators or discerners (whether of what is enduring or what is changing) I do think that awareness is important. We need to be informed. We need to understand what we are dealing with if we are to make wise decisions. We need to realize the damage some of our less informed actions are causing.

There’s also a crucial gap between understanding what IS and living NOW. How do you negotiate this difference? Or how do you move from one to the other? Answering this may allow us to come to a method of decision-making or rule, which would then bring us closer to the idea that I’m expressing where we are called to stand up to God in the confrontation where wisdom is born/received, where the whole of creation is called to arise in response to the call, and to empower the rule of wisdom.

That’s interesting. I must say that I’m not speaking out of a desire to feed my ego, at least not wholly. I certainly don’t want to preach a reckless self-aggrandizement or human-aggrandizement.

I also think that a crucial part of the question “Who are we?” is vocational, i.e., the question involves the question/s “What is our status/station?” They are not separable, or answerable, individually. We can’t steam ahead to the latter and ignore the former for to answer the latter is to answer the former (or perhaps it is a spiral as you suggest).

Now, I’m not saying you aren’t making a valid critique. But rather I wonder if your critique applies to me. In regards to the confusion I would take full blame, for I often speak of our human status. But what I really mean when I say this is vocation, or even station. I like the word station, as it includes status and calling.

Understanding the human station is to understand who we are. It is a question of status and vocation (and even nature and end).

We may have to agree to disagree here. But as a word in protest I would suggest that while you have declared your faith in life I wonder how strong it is. It seems to me that a fully-formed faith in life would believe in the resurrection of the dead, in fully restored bodily life of the deceased, even if they have passed away into ashes spread to the four corners of the earth. It would not say that those who are gone are gone forever, for that is to deny life and to affirm death instead. It is to give death the final word and to have faith in death.

(Job is consoled about dust and ashes in the end. He believes that even if ashes are in his future a saviour will come at last who will restore his flesh, and that with his own (restored) eyes Job will see God, the one who has made his resurrection from the ashes possible. 19:25-26)

Justice.

It is clear I have a narrower sense of justice than you. For me, justice, while it is doing what is right/good, it does not exhaust right/good action. Doing what is right involves wisdom, and wisdom goes deeper than justice, even as justice is an ‘arm’ of wisdom. Wisdom also involves forgiveness, consolation/comfort, patience, charity, etc, none of which are easily accounted for in/by justice. (Indeed, treating others how we want to be treated means acting wisely, not justly, for it involves doing such things as offering forgiveness, charity, comfort, etc, which are not moves of justice, at least not in my narrower sense of the word.)

So while you worry that I am narrowing God in my narrowing of justice (you say “God is much broader and so should the ideas we associate”), in truth I am trying to describe God’s action in a broader term than justice, namely, wisdom (which I intimated is my preference over grace or love even). And while I am worrying that you are confining God’s action to justice, in fact justice is a broader term in your mind, and incorporates the very things that I am afraid might be lost (forgiveness, patience, etc).

Our critiques of each other make sense given our presuppositions/definitions of justice. I think we may be saying the same thing about God. What we are arguing about is the range of justice.

Satan/the satan.

The problem is that it is neither Satan nor the satan in Genesis. Rather it is the serpent. So it is not simply a distinction between the satan and Satan that you conflate, but also the serpent. While I can understand why you disregard or would minimize my distinction between the former two, I cannot understand the latter, or equating the serpent with Satan.

How would you reconcile a statement from Jesus that we are to be as wise as serpents for instance?

To compare our moves, you take the clearer definitions of Satan from the NT and then apply them to the predescessors the satan and the serpent, assuming the same character to be active throughout.

I, on the otherhand, would see a development, or degradation, at work, where the serpent as a wise creature degrades to the satan who is still faithful to God but has lost faith in humankind to Satan who has indeed rebelled against God.

Indeed, this is a conversation we had before. Which makes the most sense? A steady Satan character throughout or a Satanic development? We would both have a heavy burden of proof placed upon us. Interesting conversation. We certainly don’t need to rehash anymore than we already have.

Natural evil.

Fair enough. I would opt for the weak reading. But let me qualify that by saying I would also maintain the omnipotence of God. Maybe a distinction would be helpful?

If we rule oppressively, is that true authority or rulership? Or if we serve purely out of self interest, is that true obedience? And finally, if our power is not exercised in true authority or obedience, is it true power?

All true power is God’s. God is omnipotent. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t ‘power’ out there in a fallen form. ‘Power’ that isn’t really power at all, even though it can pack a punch. Power without power so to speak.

So yes, in a very important sense God is weak. A lot of ‘power’ has been alienated from God (or has never been reconciled to God) and is no longer (or never was) true power.

Maybe you won’t like this distinction however. Either way, it doesn’t answer the question of natural evil. Rather it aims again at the idea that it is on us to reconcile all ‘power’ to God, which presupposes forces at work that are not. It is up to us to restore all power to true power. And as you say, can be construed as an answer to the POE.

Wildness.

I’m glad you don’t see Satan as an emanation from the original wildness. Satan is a force of evil. The wild, while they can become evil, they can also possess wisdom, and can be learned from, even as they need to be subdued, or even as they are ripe for further culturation.

For instance, the serpent you would call Satan is described as “the wisest of wild creatures”, indicating that we can learn from those who are wild and that they are not to be thought evil as dangerous as they may be. (But no doubt you would render it “the craftiest” or “most devious”!)

Also, while I want us to be subdued by wisdom, I would never want to quench that inner wildness. I don’t think God does either. God doesn’t appeal to Behemoth and Leviathan for their culture or calm, but for their unwillingness to be subdued. I think we are on the same page on that front, i.e., where you say there is something in us “that is wild” and that “it should be tempered by reason, yet not eliminated compleately by it,” I agree wholeheartedly.

Again, to me ‘wildness’ is a better term than ‘freedom’. It needs to be subdued by wisdom, yes, but never oppressed or subjugated as you put it. That ‘natural brio’ is crucial, and is what I’ve been arguing for all along (I believe that Job loses his, and God has to restore it, which God does by encouraging Job to stand up to God like a geber, i.e., a virile male).

Thanks Omar. We still have our differences clearly but I think on the most important points we agree.

But suffering, innocent or otherwise, for me, ought to have us questioning our ‘concept’ of our belief in god, which in turn it follows that we would begin to question our self and our beliefs, how the way in which we view god may actually be illogical if thought out further and may also point out our narcissism for us.

I think we ought to be, much more, focusing on and wondering how we as human beings see others and working on accepting them - and ourselves - as being worthy and acceptable human beings. If we see human beings as being in a trash heap, we are all equally responsible for that vision.

I wonder if a god who may have created us, sees itself and how human beings view it as being more important than how those creations view one another and relate to one another? I may not have expressed that too well.

You’ll have to understand the words of mine that you cited within context. I believe there are many valid responses to suffering. One is to question God, as you suggest here, and to, following this, question ourselves or our other beliefs.

It is also possible (Ivan Karamazov) to not question God but the world God created. It is possible to question it and reject it without ever questioning God.

It is also possible, as I suggest here, to question our station as human beings, that maybe we aren’t deserving of a crown but rather of the ash heap.

I agree with your assessment though that instead of focusing on the problem we should be focusing on the solution, if that indeed is what you are saying.

The problem is that with Job, for example, he was a perfect human being all along. He knew what he had to do to be worthy and he did it. The problem is, he seemed to prove unworthy nonetheless. Thus he lamented his lamentable condidion as humankind, and it was necessary for God to console him by convincing him otherwise. That as perfect humankind he is of the highest esteem, and that God holds Job in this esteem.

Hi alyoshka,

I don’t think first of all that we have a “mission”, the calling I spoke of is more the challenge that life presents and a requirement if we are to make some sense out of our existence. We seem to need that, as if it is built in to our genes. But discovering what IS and differentiating that from what I and my peers assumed to be is what I’m talking about. We have all, even Jayson, experienced our own misunderstanding and misconception of reality, so that it begs the question as to what we really know and what the nature of reality is. At my age, you get a lot of opportunity to see that many of our assumptions mislead us into situations which show our misconceptions up in an embarrassing way. This is more than just information, it is about letting the life flow through me rather than causing “whitewater” and turbulence.

I have been through most of the religious and spiritual ideas which have been spread around, I can’t claim to have understood everything but I think it was enough to make a decision about the direction of the rest of my life. I believe that many of our traditions have a basic truth and I am encouraged by someone I heard on radio (I didn’t catch the name) who said that religions are different like paths and routes are different, but we all are travelling to a common destination. There is no need to argue about the route, we just need to discern the destination. Having been brought up Christian, I believe that the reality behind the word God is big enough to encompass all belief systems, despite their differences, because that is how I came to understand the love of God in Christ. The approach I have taken on, following many more intelligent people than me, is to understand the Bible and other scriptures and literature as timeless and therefore eternal truths about us NOW, showing us where we have arrived on our journey and where turbulence is draining or endangering us.

I have defined evil above, but perhaps in this context: Evil creates turbulence and threatens our reaching our destination, destroying the basic faith we all have at birth and which should refine (under duress) up until death. There is no right time or way to leave this life, but we should grow enough to be able to accept that exit. We should therefore be working on this refinement and maturity in our meetings, without delusion and escapism, but aware, assured and confident. That is the faith of which Christ spoke of.

What “IS” is always in “NOW”, otherwise it would be “WAS” or “WILL BE”. Both of which are only of secondary importance. That which “WAS” has past and if it was bad, it should not still be present in “NOW”. That which “WILL BE” has yet to be and will be influenced by what “IS”, so we have to concentrate on “NOW”.

I question, in keeping with many wise sages, whether our concept of “I” or “SELF” is really in keeping with reality. How often do we find that second and third parties often have a different view of our “SELF” than we do? Can we distinguish ourselves from our surroundings, our family, our friends, or are we not in fact a connected happening within a interactive collective. Of course we all make decisions which give us the feeling that we are individuals, but this only goes to prove that we partake in what happens, rather than being victims of circumstance. There is even evidence to suggest that illness and accidents are not random occurrences, but we are all jointly moving the pointer on an ouija-board to say what we unconsciously want it to say, or making things happen which we unconsciously want to happen. This kind of influence is always moving us – which begs the question when, for example, children are abused by a member of the family. And isn’t it nearly always someone close to the family when children are abused and murdered? What kind of evil is happening there?

I don’t know anything about resurrection, except what we are told, but those who leave us don’t come back. This kind of magic isn’t ours to use or hope for. Like I said, what can survive after death is not known to me, even if I have heard many fascinating theories from all sorts of traditions. The good thing about life is that it has to be lived in the present and can’t be saved up for another day. Living in the past is just as illusionary, even though we might learn from experience or smile at past meetings and conversations. I feel that affirmation of life is an affirmation of NOW.

Take Care

Hi Bob,

You describe a simple and reasonable modus operandi. One chastened by your life experience and open to conversation and correction. One focused on the here and now but at the same time in touch with the past and future. One with a deep faith that grace/life will come so long as you don’t block it out or break the connection, or so long as there aren’t any obstructions in the way.

Indeed, when you say that “we should be working on this refinement and maturity in our meetings, without delusion and escapism, but aware, assured and confident,” that sounds very close to what I would call the confrontation with God where wisdom is born/received.

Vocationally speaking, I don’t think we’re far off from each other.

It is still interesting to me though that you are willing to have such a faith, that wisdom or “life will flow through you” so long as it isn’t obstructed, but that you won’t extend this to the future. That you see an end to the flow of wisdom and life. (I don’t think Jesus for instance accepted that inevitable exit. In fact, he said that he would rise 3 days later.)

But that would be extra baggage, so to speak, and would complicate your simple and reasonable view. I suppose it is one thing to believe that wisdom/life will come if you are mindful of your own fallibility and possible obstructions and another to believe that life will come long after you’ve passed away.

You know, I was talking to my brother about this just last night, about his own inability to believe in the resurrection of the dead. My argument was simple. He is an intelligent man, a man who rightly speaks up and whose words should not be discounted. Yet even he has been subdued in the past by words of wisdom, by words that have silenced him and compelled his obedience. And if that is possible, that is, if there are words of such power that can put one such as him in his place, then why not the sea? What is the sea compared to him that there would not be words capable of calming it or commanding its motions? And taking this even further, why not death? If there are words that can solicit the obedience of a human being such as him then is it not reasonable to think that there are words that can silence death? Words of such power that they would compell our very ashes to regather and reform, making us even more beautiful in the process?

That’s the faith anyways. That such words exist. That such words have been spoken in the past and will be spoken again. That such words come out of the very process or the fulfillment of the vocation that I believe you describe.

Hi Alyoshka,

Interesting that you say this, since many Christians tend to differ and consider me a heretic. I personally don’t agree with them, but see myself in the way you have described. Only this week my wife and I spoke about the fact that Christians have often been excited about how inspirational the meetings were that I held (especially the last one) and yet tended to shy away. I tend to follow Christ’s advice and dust my feet and move on, which doesn’t exactly help the situation, but so it is.

I see the confrontation with God as God confronting me, rather than the other way around, and the chamber experience (Mt. 6:6) as the opportunity for that. I pray in as much as my ritual prepares me to listen rather than speak, although I do speak or chant at the beginning. After that I am more in meditation mode, watching and listening, concentrating on the breath, centred and relaxed. I would like to think that wisdom grows in that experience, but it is probably only to be found in a growing knowledge of myself.

I wasn’t clear then, because I do not rule anything out, and like I say, I have listened to what other people have said about resurrection, but I can’t decide how it is to be understood as yet. I have come across so many things that make full sense when I do not demand that they be literally true, but with the resurrection, I am inconclusive. I just haven’t any reason to believe that the dead rise here and now, and bereavement always remains bereavement – whatever I believe.

Words are human, and I believe that they block our ability to receive. Communication is more effective heart-to-heart and lovers and friends need few words in their communion, and they are often abstract, poetic, soul-language. I believe that it is this soul-language that we have lost in attempts to be overly rational – which is the trap for believers and non-believers alike, it seems. If the soul communicates or is communicated to, we feel the message more than we rationally understand it. This is also an experience that inspired scientists have in common with gurus and inspired spiritual people. Inspiration hits us and we make words or formulae out of it – and thereby immediately falsify the immediacy of that inspiration. But it is all we can do.

I think that we just need to keep a beginners mind alive but with reverence and awe. Everything else will sort itself out.

Take care

I destinctly get the impression that I am a heretic - at least I’m not off topic :wink:

Bob, if you keep working at it, you can be a heathen like me! But I’ll understand if you’d rather not… :wink:

I’ve knocked at that door in the past but I found that they didn’t really want me … thanks for the offer though :-"

I think it’s interesting to look at the Biblical answers to the problem of evil. The Biblical authors give a number of explanations for evil, but the free will defense that is so often argued today is not one of them… In the early Hebrew religion there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the world. It is said of heaven and earth that “he established them forever and ever; he gave a decree, and it shall not pass away.” [Psalm 148:6 ] No need for apocalyptic judgment was envisioned.

When Israel was conquered, the vision of the cosmos changed. The protection and blessings of God could no longer be counted on for the faithful. The people accused God of being unjust. [Ezekiel 18:25] Into this mix entered the cosmic dualism of the Persians. God gained an enemy—the Devil. The two were locked in a battle for survival involving the whole creation. There were righteous angels on God’s side and wicked demons on Satan’s. The dead would be judged. Heaven and hell, the resurrection, eternal life, and the future apocalypse all became part of the cosmic drama.

Evil came to be understood in terms of the righteous suffering for the cause of God. The good suffer when they are tested by the devil like Job was. In new order a spiritual realm was felt to exist behind the material. Into this battle entered Jesus. He was king, but not of this world. He was a warrior against the devil and the world forces of darkness. If you were one of his, you were called to suffer like he did to defeat the devil for greater glory in the other world.

So this worldview explains evil, but it is incompatible with the idea of an omnipotent God. If God is all powerful, then spiritual warfare is just an illusion. It is as if God is shadow boxing, because God 1) didn’t have to create the world this way and 2) he could fix the world in a heartbeat.

Interestingly, Karen Armstrong writes that Ezekiel was the prophetic beginning of what would later become a “book religion” because the temple cult, which was essential for the JHVH religion, could no longer be adhered to in the Babylonian exile. At the beginning of this exile, there was as yet no master narrative, just a jumbled up group of legends, passed on by word of mouth, about the heroes of the various tribes and various scriptures of varying origin. In Babylon, of course, they were confronted by numerous other myths and analogies, which they also incorporated into what would finally become a master narrative: The Torah.

Of course you’re right that this was a changing point and the duality of the world became an issue which doesn’t seem to have even been cleared up conclusively for most people. Evil still has today a position equal to Good, despite the theological acrobatics undertaken to explain that, yes there is evil, but it can only expand as far as God lets it expand, and good will win in the end. This has of course a taste of dramaturgy, which keeps the master narrative enthralling, and believers in suspense. We must however question whether this ancient portrayal still has relevance.

As I wrote in the other thread, speaking about the religious experience as the centre of religion, rather than scripture and literature, “In a way it is the holy of holies at the centre of the temple, surrounded by the court of the faithful and the outer court of the nations. We tend to talk in that outer court and speculate on what is in the middle. Those who enter the inner court have a better idea, but it is only when they enter the holy of holies that they have a glimpse of what it is all about. I think that this idea of a temple was a metaphor made out of bricks and mortar for the spiritual reality, just as we find elsewhere in other traditions.” The rise of scripture was the attempt to gain inspiration by other means – of which there are plenty of examples in the world – but to a great degree it transferred religion to the head and away from the soul.

It seems to have been chiefly Jesus, but also various Prophets, who envisioned a return to a soulful religion, in which scripture is “written on the heart” and God is in the midst of the faithful. This Realm of God or Realm of Heaven needed to be discovered, not invoked, as the Pharisees seemed to claim. Trying to force God to play his hand would seem sacrilege for someone who saw God in every tree, flower, bird, animal – and in the processes of nature and even politics.

The idea of an adversary seems to be more subtle, since the devil is an adversary and accuser of humankind. He serves to show the alternatives and present humankind with a choice, which, on selecting, proves the case for the prosecutor. Humankind is on trial in this narrative. It is a trial to decide whether humankind actually is the “image of God”, or rather the image of the beast. Is it flesh or spirit which rules humankind? Can humankind transcend his natural existence? It is a question which has had astounding actuality throughout the centuries and will finally decide the future of our species.

Take Care

My religion isn’t threatened by evil [even where I may be], because I think evil is created purely by us collectively. Its our inability to adjust and be detached, whereby we think this temporary illusion of form is such that if the brain thinks something then that is who and what we are. Its being caught in the material rather than being in command of it ~ though in our defence the latter can seam impossible to achieve.

It was posited in the western society we were born into. We took it in with our mothers’ milk. For some, it is the myth they continue to live by. For the rest of us, it is the black background in our gestalt.

In the spiritual tradition of my past the tabernacle and the temple were taught as a metaphor for inner lspiritual life.

Yes, Jesus revealed a different concept of God.

Yes. The human species seems to be poised on the knife edge. Let’s hope that the prophesied mass detruction of humanity is not self-fufilled.

You too, Bob.

Not at all, at least not on this point! On your suggestion that we are all dust in the end, yes, I would call you a heretic or disbeliever, but not on this point. (But keep in mind I don’t know how good a Christian I am. Most would balk at my proposals as well!)

Now I’m not an expert in the Hebrew, but in the case of Abraham (at least) I believe it is remarkable that the roles are reversed, that it is Abraham who confronts God, or who stands before God. I can’t give this any detail at the moment but only that this is what I’ve been taught.

As for the confrontation, let me be clear about what I mean. It’s not necessarily that God is wrong, and that we stand before God to strip God down, so to speak. Rather it’s a standing against God where we’re both struggling for the same goal (viz., wisdom). Not that we’re both fighting for our own view and the winner of the fight is the one who wins, but that we’re in this together and we need to figure this out together, you know?

We must throw our full weight against each other, which means our full arsenal of knowledge and belief. But as you say we must be just as ready to listen as speak. Indeed, fear of the Lord (of the weight of God’s words and the value they hold) is paramount. It is the beginning and our foundation.

But we must also recognize the weight of our own words as well. Not that they are necessarily right but that God wants us to throw them against God. That it is in such a confrontation where wisdom is born/received. (I have to keep referring to Job, that God says that Job spoke truly against God (42:7), and that this ‘against’ is the same term used of the river Jordan rushing against Behemoth. That’s the scene we have to envision: A great beast pushing against a mighty river, pushing forward, yes, but where the river throws all that it has against it in the confrontation.)

I know the feeling. To be honest though, it sounds more Buddhist than Christian! Jews, for instance, don’t strike me as the meditative type. Rather the virile, warrior type! I think this posture is critical though. It is essential that we listen. That we clear our mind. That we wipe it of our presuppositions so that we’re in a space where we’re open to new ideas that may outstrip our own. (Indeed, while Job threw all that he had against God he also listened. He discerned what God was saying and took it to heart rather than focusing on his own arguments in the effort to win a point against God.)

I think it’s easy to diminish the power of resurrection if we strip it of its literal truth. It has to be maintained in its fullest sense. Of restoration of bodily life some time in the future. So I think you are right to avoid such non-literal views. But yes, I don’t think it will ever be understood. Science and technology may be involved in providing the answer. Who knows. But right now and up until now it has been an item of faith, and I don’t think I need to tell you that faith requires no conclusiveness in the believer. (As such it would no longer be faith.)

Instead, we have to believe and commit our full selves to that belief. Not that “God gives and God takes away” but that God gives. That the gift (of life) is what God promises us, and that this promise was never meant to be (and never has been) annuled. While sin may have brought death into the world, not even sin is strong enough to annul this promise. And while a “gift economy” may require we not hold on to what we’re given, that we be ready to have it taken back (or regiven as a gift), a gift economy also means that what we do give back will return. It will return and be even greater than before. (In truth it is “God gives and God takes away, but then God gives even more.”)

Who am I to argue? That is the beginning of wisdom. But I do think we need to learn to fear our own words as well, that they can carry the weight of God’s (or can carry wisdom and truth in their own right). I can’t trust that everything else will sort itself out. Fear of God is not enough.

And while I would agree with your critique, that we’ve lost touch with a certain pre-rational mode of communication, I would also add that the rational is an important mode, and it is just as necessary to speak to people’s minds as it is to people’s hearts. Where before the heart was cut off and the mind received full attention, the solution is not to turn all of our attention to the heart and to forget the mind. We must deal with the human person in its fullness: heart, body, and mind. I don’t think you would disagree. I say this just to make sure we’re on the same page.

Hi alyoshka,

Yes, I understand you and agree with you there. It is in the German word “Auseinandersetzung” which literally means sitting apart, refusing to merge until the issue is cleared up. With Abraham and Sodom and Gomorrah it is a case of God looking for Abraham’s recognition of the situation and his inclusion in decision about the final destiny of that city. Inclusion involves joint decisions and Abraham tests what he has trusted about JHVH in his intercession but is slowly whittled down to accept the reality of the situations. Yes, he interceded, but he had to come to realise the truth.

Whilst I agree that we must wrestle, it must be clear that we are in fact wrestling for the truth of the matter. Jacob gains a new name, but his hip will always remind him of that struggle. In fact, it isn’t really with God that we wrestle, but with truths which we often will not accept. Intercession also has this aspect about it, although we often understand it as petitionary, but rarely does God solve situations for us, but people are put in the position to sort it out themselves. People who pray are often people who give generously and in that prayerful community, their joint generosity often solves the problem. Ideally prayerful people are also mindful people who are aware of what is going on in their parish, so petition is fulfilled by people who are out listening.

I get the feeling that the impetus of our own words is dependent upon their direction and intention. We hear enough people complaining and meet enough depressed people, but really prayerful people complain less and are less depressive. Their constructive and considerate approach to problems is congruent with their prayer life, so that the wonders they wish would happen can come true by their own doing.

I think that the contrast between Buddhism and Christianity helps both, which is what I understand the Dalai Lama as having said (frimmin.com/faith/lotuscross.php)

I believe that the whole issue of Christianity is about “theosis” (see: frimmin.com/faith/theosis.php) and that this subject has been covered in differing degrees by several religions, if not all of them. The big problem about “God” is the elusiveness, like someone turning the far corner away from us as we come around the near corner, we get a shadow or we see a shoe-sole but they’re gone. Or its like steam in a sunbeam that dances and floats in front of you, but fades as you get closer. Or it is like a star that catches our eyes in the telescope but which fades with the sunlight and we are left waiting for our next opportunity.

We associate all good things with God, and express our thanks, but we seem to be unthankful when those gifts are taken back. Really, nobody guaranteed how long we would have what has made our life a joy but, however short the joy lasts, we are better off for having experienced it. We also know that we learn more when life isn’t so light and easy, and that the “good life” makes us fat, lethargic and clinging to the sweet things, but reason seems to leave us in times when we feel hard done by.

Resurrection seems to me to be the hope of an endless “good life” for many, and I just feel that life is more than ambrosia. The Greeks and the Buddhists make jokes about the gods in their “heaven”, because they are jealous of human beings for their possibilities. Whatever resurrection is, I just hope it isn’t as boring as some theologians make it seem to be.

But that is a very important issue – we are very much “heart, body, and mind”, so much so that we can’t locate our consciousness, even though we know where in the brain information is stored and called up, but one of the biggest mysteries today remains human conciousness, and the psyche is even more of a mystery. What I was talking about, however, is that this age of rationality has shown itself to be as erroneous as previous ages, despite our conviction that we have progressed. We have moved on, but our goal remains over that hill, and we don’t know what it looks like. What we do know is that if we only concentrate on heart, body or mind, we will be restricting our awareness still further.

Take Care