So, just what are we dealing with here?

· by · in Devotionals. ·

I am not one for religious debate.  Of all the religious debates I’ve seen (mostly on political forums and YouTube comment sections), I have found them to be fruitless at best and downright obstructive at worst.  Now, does this mean I don’t believe people should speak their minds and exchange ideas?  Of course not.  (If I didn’t, I wouldn’t have started this blog!)  However, never in my life has religious debate actually appealed to me.  After I started observing them, I began to see why, and I think anyone who’s sat through or read enough of the mumbo jumbo understands where I’m coming from.

That said, it would be dishonest of me to say that exposing myself to different perspectives on God hasn’t helped me evolve intellectually and spiritually.  I’ve been a Christian for as long as I can remember.  Today I am eighteen years old, and I cannot recall a single time that I have wavered my faith.  Years ago, however, my understanding (or lack thereof) of God was radically different from the way it is today.  You see, like many other theists, I used to imagine God as not much more than a man in the sky with a long white beard watching us, making sure we’re on our best behavior, listening to prayers, hanging out with his buddies in Heaven, and all that other stuff.  But I never really got in touch with that faith until I sought to learn more about it.

Over time, I’ve come to conclude that God’s nature has not yet fully been embraced by anyone – even those who claim to have a special relationship or knowledge of Him.  I saw that, for generations, God has been reduced to a mere symbol Whose very nature is understandable within the confines of human knowledge – knowledge that is attributed only to our experiences as members of the universe and followers of its laws.  Such is a reflection of the human psyche.  Of course, few theists are willing to acknowledge that this God goes beyond human conception, which has since the beginning of mankind consisted of the thoughts and writings of mortals.  Thus, we have collectively failed to grasp God (or at least, the concept of God), yet so many of us pat ourselves on the back and claim to not only know God, but to know His desires and His will down to the bare bones.

Now, as any debater knows, two cannot engage in a meaningful discussion unless key terms are defined.  That is what makes modern religious debate so directionless, so fruitless.

Paul Tillich pointed out that it is difficult to speak of God these days because people immediately ask you if a God exists.  We have reduced God to a scientific hypothesis and turned God into the ultimate explanation of the universe.  We have turned God into just another member of the cosmos – that bearded man in the sky, Who goes about His days as we do ours.  We do not engage with God imaginatively, engage with Him ritually, and allow Him to affect us in the same way we want to affect Him.

Why, I ask, can Christians not identify with God in the similar manner as Hindus do?  Why do we imagine God as a distant reality rather than the center of the spiritual life principle of the universe?  Why can God not exist outside the circle of our understanding?  If you think we already do and say that these questions need not be asked, I ask you to pay extra attention to the language that has defined our world’s dilemma with God.

I realize now, that theists and atheists alike have turned religion into a system for providing answers that lay within the reach of human reason.  The task of religion, as author and former nun Karen Armstrong once wrote, “was to help us live creatively, peacefully, and even joyously with realities for which there were no easy explanations and problems that we could not solve: morality, pain, grief, despair, and outrage at the injustice and cruelty of life.”  She gives us the example of cancer: science can diagnose and cure it, but it cannot, in the same way religion does, assuage the terror, disappointment, and sorrow that comes with having it, nor can it help us to die well.

So what is it I’m I getting at?  Religion can work and it can be beneficial to our world, but only if approached with the right mind and the right intentions.  It cannot succeed if it is wrong, idolatrous, or self-indulgent.  Yet rather than making it work,  the fundamentalists have used religion as a substitute for logos, which is intended to provide us with solid answers.  Such is why atheism became a viable proposition, as scientific findings have been used to render “God” redundant and, in doing so, reduce Him to pure nothingness.  This simply would not have happened had theists not justified their beliefs with scientific proof.

As theists, we must instead focus on living life ambitiously.  Live generously, large-heartedly, and open-minded.  Give your life the significance it desires.  Integrate with your daily lives and the moments of rapture and insights that come to you in your dreams.  Engage yourself with the natural order that’s been given to us, and if understanding God starts looking like a fool’s errand to you, try understanding His creation instead.  It’s the second best thing we’ve got, isn’t it?

153 responses to “So, just what are we dealing with here?”

  2. I went to a Jewish day school all through high school, and we took a Jewish philosophy course. Some of the things we covered included how we know God exists, how we define God, and how we can relate to him. This post brought back memories of that course. Thanks.

  5. It’s very interesting to see how your perspective of God has changed as you have gone through childhood.
    I do think that debate is always somewhat beneficial, but in some cases it is difficult when regarding religion due to, not only the conviction with which people believe their thoughts to be true, but also because there is very little that is solidly provable.
    Perhaps the best form of religious debate is that which asks why we have religion, and how it changes us.
    So saying, I think my current favourite quote is one by the philosopher Nietzsche, who said “The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.” – and, in my opinion at least, debate is a good way to open minds.

  6. Hey there, 🙂
    I am 17, a Muslim, but I can totally relate to you. Brought up in a semi-religious household, but a rather conservative society, I witnessed the same.
    Really liked this post. You should know that regardless of religion and geography, your views would be shared by young minds alike. A great, eye-opening write! (Y) 🙂

  7. This is a discussion I think we need to all have when it comes to religion. I agree that too many people approach religion as some kind of safety net, that they don’t get what it should truly mean, that personal and spiritual connection. I really enjoyed this post. And congrats on being Freshly Pressed!

  8. Babe, you are only 18 and have so much wisdom. One thing I’d note is you sound more like a deist than a theist – the theist believes in the God of Abraham, the Trinity, etc. The Founders of this country were mostly deists – believing that there is some vast intelligence behind the creation of all things,, perhaps naming it God but not as a personage. I’m married to a psstor, but I don’t believe in the “miracles” etc., of the New Testament, nor in the “virgin birth.” These were largely devices by which Jesus’ followers could gain acceptance to convey his message of unconditional love — and that, my friend, is where the real debate begins… exclusion from the faith of LGBT people, single parents, divorced couples… Too many people call themselves Christian and take on the mantle, put money in the plate, are saved, whatever. But if they passed the homeless, sandal-footed, dusty Jesus on the street, they’d hold their noses and never recognize him.

    I’m glad to be in the United Church of Christ, which believes in a God who speaks through all of us. Continually. All are welcome, and we mean it. Come in, stinky Street Jesus, and we’ll let you take a shower in our homeless shelter, give you something to eat, talk to you about programs in town for whatever put you in the position of being homeless.

    My two cents. Great post, and congrats on being Freshly Pressed! Come visit what my Fundamentalist sister calls my “She’s going straight to Hell” blog anytime! Amy Barlow Liberatore, Madison, WI

    • Sharp Little Pencil, thank you so much for your kind words.

      I read over your profile, and I must say I’m already interested in what you have to offer here. I generally agree with what you have to say, and I will definitely put it on my to-read list.

      Like you, I believe that there are many paths to God. I identify myself as both a theist and a Christian, but I think the kingdom of Heaven connects to many roads, and salvation is offered to anyone who simply loves God and loves their neighbors as themselves – two commandments that are hard to follow at times, but so beautifully simple in concept, and encompass not only the Ten Commandments, but anyone’s belief system so long as it fits the same criteria.

      The United Church of Christ is an excellent sect. It is one I was baptized in, and it is the one I started attending again not too long ago. 🙂

      Thank you again for your kind words. I was so touched when I saw your post. 🙂

  12. Interesting post. One thing that I have found in the discussion of atheists and theists is that those who believe in God always approach the argument as if they have all the answers and this is why atheists normally win because they are able to show that we don’t know everything. But what theists need to recognize is that atheists can’t back up their claims either. We need to let them try to defend their position more instead of charging in with our “wisdom”.

  14. First of all, I believe the kind of reflection that is made here shows the seriousness you have toward the religion you are believing in. Some Christian believe God because of a ‘personal relationship’. If there is the case, then I think that’s not different from believing the ancient Zeus or Jupiter (which were seriously believed at the time of Roman Empire). What made Christianity (or any monotheism) from other ‘Eastern’ religions (says Buddhism and Daoism) is the belief of an absolute truth. While Buddhist or Daoist may say there is different feeling for everyone, that is not the case in Christianity.
    That said, the conflict between Christianity and Science may be inevitable, as each claims to have found the unchanging truth about the nature.
    Personally, I believe religion and science are not mutually exclusive, but for a different reason. If interested, you may check my post here: http://1989nineteeneightynine.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/science-and-religion-are-not-mutually-exclusive/

  17. The very point of religion was to create a double standard. If you are a believer you would not be trying to persuade me. You can’t have it both ways.

  19. Pingback: Freshly Riffed 42: So Long, And Thanks For All The References | A VERY STRANGE PLACE·

  20. Your argument is compelling and deserves a wide audience. If one believes there is a god who cares for humans, and that this god desires humans care for one another, spitting hate and bile in the name of that god is nonsense.
    Proof of existence is more important to people when they are being asked to adapt their behaviour to conform to the strictures of a proposed deity. “Why should I? What’s going to happen if I don’t behave as you say I should?”
    If your god’s existence does not attempt to alter the way I live my life, but only makes YOU a better person to share the earth with, I’m less likely to try and prove you’re wrong.

  23. Your right in stating that when God starts looking like a fool try to understand his creation. We do need to look further into why humans can believe in such absurdities as Thor and your god in the year 2013 when the evidence suggests else wise. You state that religion can be beneficial. I would like to see such evidence please. I’ve heard this claim many times and no one can show me how religion can benefit someone in ways that other secular organizations/ideas cannot achieve.

  25. I really enjoyed reading your insight into religion. Thank you for sharing. I agree that we reduce God to a concept that works for us and move away from the actual spirituallity of God.

  26. I love how you pointed out how defining terms is the only way to a proper debate. That is exactly where most debates get off track and become and argument and then at the end you realize you were both arguing for the same point but you had defined terms differently.

  27. Every religion is a philosophy with added superstition. It isn’t needed, as can be seen by the simple example of China which has been operated throughout its long history mainly by ethics derived from confucianism, without any God factor. Thats what we should be implementing in our modern times. Just my 2 cents.

  30. In reality all God Talk, really must be theological and even dogmatic, for GOD Himself is both “transcendent” and “immanent”!

    “You worship what you do not know, we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father (God) in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must (of necessity) worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4: 22-24 Jesus speaking!)

    And yet, this is even itself the work and essence of both the Father and the Son: AS he see in this “Johannine” Text in Matt. 11: 27, “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Sin will to reveal Him.”

    Indeed, some “neo-Calvinism” here!

  32. Personally, I like to argue the “does God exist” argument with solipsism. “Do YOU exist? Do I? Prove it to me.”

    That said, I think you are correct, and I enjoyed reading this. I will look forward to more in the future, and congrats on being “pressed”.

  33. Every religion is man made. We are trying to explain the infinite in our own ways. The Great Origin doesn’t write books ;-P People do. Great blog! Your points were all clear and concise, something I like in a blog ❤

  34. Very well written. I have changed my view of God over the years but never really wavered in belief. So much theory and argument was thrown at you to throw at others that it was easy to be a turn off. I love this : She gives us the example of cancer: science can diagnose and cure it, but it cannot, in the same way religion does, assuage the terror, disappointment, and sorrow that comes with having it, nor can it help us to die well.” Thanks for the wise words.

  35. I don’t agree with you. That is why I think it is best to keep our thoughts on religion private, it is the safest way in my mind to be.

  36. Good post. Will look forward to future posts. I have also observed debates and reached the conclusion that it is a form of discussion that hardly complies with religious values. We must engage in discourse though, a common quest for knowledge.

  37. In a culture where many deny the existence of God due to lack of evidence.. believers in God would do well to remember that, according to Hebrews 11:1, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” The life you call theists to in your final paragraph is a life that provides both substance and evidence to nonbelievers. Said substance and evidence, however should not be merely political, or perhaps archaeological, (even though historical proof for the God of the Bible is all around us.) The proof unbelievers seek is in the living out of the beautiful, self-sacrificing, humble, loving, merciful life those same scriptures call us to.

  39. I’m an atheist, but I respect people who think the way you do. In my country, Christians don’t think that way. They don’t realize that God is not just Jesus and religion is not only about praying and doing good deeds.

  41. This was an interesting read, especially for me, an atheist.

    You present legitimate questions and concerns, but then seem to dodge the logical answers. You take notice of how “God has been reduced to a mere symbol,” and ignore the fact that God did not undergo a gradual reduction to mere symbolic status, but was a always a symbol to begin with. The reason Christians will never share the same relationship with Christianity as Hindus do with Hinduism is because the sole justification for the entire religion lies within a book that is proposed to have been authored through the collective efforts of man. The Christian faith cannot transcend the “confines of human knowledge” when it was built within the confines of human knowledge.

    You can call Christianity “spiritual” all you want, but that doesn’t make it so. I’ve noticed Christians like to slap the “faith” sticker on everything. (“Oh, we know God does’t actually exist, but it’s just something you need “faith” to understand.) Christians enjoy a voluntary divorce from reality by sprinkling on upbeat, generic phrases much like the ones you included in your post. “… Live ambitiously. Live generously, large-heartedly, and open-minded.” I’m not saying these aren’t great ways to live, but Christians act like its their responsibility to be the chief endorsers of the principles, but in reality it just leads to misleadingly glamorized benefits of “faith”, like advertisement. Your ability to follow the aforementioned guidelines has no correlation with how big your theist muscles are and adding the label “faith” on top of an illogical belief system doesn’t legitimize it.

    You even go as far to say, “Give your life the significance it desires,” but how are you supposed to do that when God, the Almighty Omnipotent, supposedly already has a “plan” for you. Sounds like your life is pretty much mapped out.

    You know that “two … debaters cannot engage in a meaningful discussion unless key terms are defined, but then later in the post you get down to talking about how “religion can work and it can be beneficial to our world, but only if approached with the ‘right’ mind and the ‘right’ intentions.”

    Well, let me tell you, religion will never work and be beneficial until there is a universal understanding of what’s “right” because followers of two totally opposing religions will both claim to be right, but who’s to say which one is true; your God or theirs?

    • bloochoochoo, thank you for reading and commenting. Allow me to address some of your concerns.

      First of all, as a theist, I do not believe that God is a mere symbol. I would go as far as to say that God is so great that no symbol can adequately represent Him, yet we speak of Him as anything else that we find in a mathematical equation – we speak of Him as just “one of those things” that exist in the universe. Indeed, many Christians cannot know or even appreciate God the same way Hindus do because their belief system is based in sola scriptura, which, I’m sure as you know, is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge relevant to God and salvation. The great irony is that folks who hold this belief have turned the Bible into the “fourth member,” if you will, of the Holy Trinity and idolized it as such – a clear violation of the law they claim to uphold. And that itself is foolish. Why? Because things like sola scriptura endorse the idea that God can be understood entirely with that book. As a Christian, I believe that ridding ourselves of sola scriptura is the only way to wrap our minds around the complexity – not the nature – of God.

      Secondly, never in this blog have I suggested that atheists are unable to live ambitiously, generously, large-heartedly, and open-mindedly. But I do think that Christians, the one who profess their belief that there is a God rooted beneath those values, need to be expected and constantly reminded to uphold that belief as examples to the rest of the world. I think Jesus knows His disciples by how they love, not so much by how they believe. I don’t know if I’d say you can be a follower of Christ without believing in God, but I think you can live the Christly lifestyle, with or without God.

      As far as God’s “plan,” well, that’s a discussion for another day. I am not a Calvinist and I think we are free to determine our destinies in the context of the natural order of things, but that is my own opinion.

      Lastly, no one, in my opinion, should claim that they’re “right.” Should we have in mind what is best for ourselves and each other? You bet we should! But given the abundance of paths to God led by folks who claim that their direction is the right one, I don’t think there is a penalty for getting it wrong.
      Nevertheless, all world religions lead to the same conclusion: that there is an all-powerful God Who is responsible for the universe’s beginnings. What they disagree on is how this universe came to physically be, and through what prophets and laws God wishes to convey His word.

      • I understand you telling me you don’t see God as a mere symbol, but what is your justification for that belief? If you trace the Christian religion (not to be confused with the procession of the Bible) back as far as it will go, you end up at the writing of the Bible. This translates to me as Christianity being just a book, considering it’s initial foundation is a just a book.

        Also, I never suggested that you said atheists couldn’t live under the set of principles discussed, but I did say something you apparently missed, but just proved to be true. That was the fact that Christians act like those are their set of principles to endorse. That it’s the Christian community’s job to play big brother and set an example for others. You’ve confirmed this by referring to those principles as (correct me if I’m misunderstanding) “the Christly lifestyle”. What I’m getting at is this: It’s not the “Christly” lifestyle, it’s just a positive lifestyle.

        I’ll drop the God’s plan discussion as well because that’ll just take me off on a tangent.

        And yes, it would be ideal if no one claimed to right, but again, you can’t surround yourself in this pristine Christian bubble and divorce yourself from the facts at hand. The facts being, people do claim to be right and they always will. Which is why I’ve stated that religious cannot exist in harmony. Those disagreements you speak of so lightly (most dangerously the ones regarding what “laws” should be enforced) have caused nothing but death and division among the whole human race.

      • I do not see God as a symbol, simply because, God by very nature exists as something that reaches far beyond symbols. Nothing can transcend God, equalize God, let alone be associated with God lest God decides something should. Does that make more sense?

        Also, please keep in mind that the Bible was not written as “The Bible.” The Bible is, in fact, a compilation of letters, accounts, and stories, but I don’t think that alone should make the Bible “just a book.” There’s meaning to it, but nothing in the Bible can provide humans the same understanding of God the way God Himself can. This is why I think there will be questions that will simply not be answered until we pass on to the next life, should an afterlife exist.

        To your point about living a Christly lifestyle – it is the job of Christians to set an example for others because they profess that there is not just a way for living a positive lifestyle, but something rooted beneath that lifestyle. We profess that we are ambassadors of a faith beneath the watchful eyes of a divine creator. To you, there may not be a difference between living under the same morals Jesus did and just “living positively,” but to many Christians there is. I’d refer you to my favorite passage of the entire Bible: John 13:35 – “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Can you be a disciple of Christ even if you do not accept His divinity or even the existence of God? I think you can. Of course, it is not me who makes the final call.

        Lastly, I am not surrounding myself in a bubble. Quite the opposite. If organized religion in its current state wasn’t so detrimental to society, I wouldn’t even be preaching the message in my blog. I even wrote in the article that religion should not be used as a substitute for logos, which is intended to provide us with solid, irrefutable answers. The fundamentalists who claim to have the only path to truth and to God are missing the entire point of religion. People of different faiths can exist in harmony, but the minds and intentions of these people need to be changed. Unfortunately, pushing dogma rather than compassion is priority number one for many religious people. That is what I want to change.

      • I don’t think we will get anywhere so long as you keep telling me (in summary), “God isn’t a symbol because he exists beyond symbols.” If you don’t understand what I mean by that, it’s like me saying, “I don’t believe in God because God doesn’t exist.” Yes, I’ve said something in response, but it has no worth because it’s just redundancy disguised by rewording.

        I’m perfectly aware that the Bible is a collective whole, but it wouldn’t make sense to say “the compilation of letters, accounts, and stories” every time I wanted to refer to the Bible, would it? Let’s not argue semantics. And am I understanding correctly that you’re saying the Bible (the basis of the Christian faith) is insufficient in providing its readers a proper understanding? The supposed “Word of God” isn’t quite enough? Again, I feel you are being unrealistic. That would be like me reading a very descriptive instruction manual for (let’s say an iPhone) then saying, “Oh, I can’t fully understand how to use this phone until Steve Jobs himself explains it to me.” Am I making sense?

        Who are you to say “it is the ‘job’ of Christians to set an example for others”? I think you’re trying to extend your reach beyond what is being asked of you and it’s often the reason why Christians step into others’ territory. It is not your “job” unto everyone else. It is your job for yourself. Yes, it’s great that you want others to recognize you as a “disciple,” but it’s not your designation to put yourself on a pedestal as the term “ambassador” suggests. “Can you be a disciple of Christ even if you do not accept His divinity or even the existence of God?” Definitely not. Usually, when a person makes the conscious decision not to accept something, they do not want to be associated with it. If I offer you pancakes and you decline, you would be annoyed if I put them on your plate anyway, would you not?

        And it is possible to surround yourself in a bubble, but simply be (in an effort to maintain the theme) “selectively permeable”. Yes, you’re willing to preach the message and absorb some insights from other perspectives. You are not, however, fully prepared to run headfirst into all the realities. You say the minds and intentions of people of different faiths need to me changed. How do you propose to do that and still preserve their belief system? They are called “belief” systems for a reason, as opposed to mere “thought” systems.

      • Bloochoochoo, I fear we are getting off track and are making no progress whatsoever with this, so I’m going to respond to your points one last time and you can have the last word. Hopefully this time you will understand my position.

        You wanted me to justify why I don’t think God can be reduced to a symbol. I did such.

        You said, “If you trace the Christian religion (not to be confused with the procession of the Bible) back as far as it will go, you end up at the writing of the Bible.” I felt it was necessary to clarify that this is actually the composing of the Bible. Now, the Bible is not, as I’ve said in another article on this blog, “the Word of God,” at least in a literal sense. And no, it’s not enough. It may provide us insight into the life of Jesus Christ, but even devout Christians concede it isn’t sufficient in giving us the entire story, let alone allow us to “master” God – a blatant contradiction, when you think about it. (Some even believe that books which were omitted from the Bible should be incorporated into the official text, but that’s another issue.)

        Also, your iPhone analogy isn’t making much of a point. Humans can understand the iPod because humans developed the iPod. Humans cannot understand God because humans did not create God and because we have only physically experienced what God has left for us (that being, of course, nature). It is fine and reasonable to believe that a creator exists, but trying to wrap your head around every bit and piece of that creator is impossible for a human.

        Jesus told His disciples, present and future, that it is good to “evangelize,” or preach His word. We are not expected to hold you by your throat until you profess belief, but we are expected to speak of God’s love by showing God’s love. Non-Christians are expected by society to uphold certain moral standards, but that’s not necessarily the same as Christians trying to uphold their moral standards which, when you get down to it, are not controversial. The controversy rests at whether one should accept Jesus into their life along with His teachings, which I personally don’t believe God smites people for not doing, especially since humanity has been robbed of any true path, what with the subjectivity of whose path is the “correct” one or the “better” one. The important thing, first and foremost, is love. (1 Corinthians 13:13)

        I’m not prepared to run into what realities? Heck, what is “reality,” anyway? I’ve been able to maintain my Christian beliefs while taking a tolerant, more progressive approach to religion that respects other viewpoints and doesn’t contradict science or claim to be superior to science. I abandoned my traditional philosophy on religion after I started reading, experiencing life, reading, talking to others, reading, asking questions, and more reading. One need not abandon their values to take on a new perspective. I fully accept that more conservative Christians will never accept my approach to the faith, but that doesn’t stop me from trying to convince people that there are other ways of inviting God into their lives and not have to reject Him. I am definitely not the first person to do so.

  43. Pingback: So, just what are we dealing with here? | Eddie Ranghetti·

  44. Thank you for your thoughtful post. Scripture is where I find the true God. When I stopped approaching the Bible like a CSI investigator looking for evidence to use against God, and seriously immersed myself in the Bible, that’s when I began to appreciate the true character of God. With the right attitude toward scripture, I am challenged to step beyond myself and my selfish desires to experience God in his purest form. Too often I engage in religious debates with my own understanding and spin instead of letting scripture speak for itself.

  46. Pingback: So, just what are we dealing with here? | wpjjrwillp·

  48. I never liked religious debates. It’s not entirely boring, it’s just that I think there will never be a winner between two opposing sects. So why bother debate about which is which and what is what, i’d rather spend that time sharing my stories to somehow inspire other people.

  50. And that’s what living spiritually is all about, isn’t it? Living a decent, moral existence and being kind to your fellow man. There is really no mystery to it.

Leave a reply to scottsunday Cancel reply