I want to talk a bit about God today. It ahs been a couple of weeks since I posted, in large part because of a stimulating conversation with a gentleman about religion. I have given a 3 part discussion in our church which by unanimous choice of the participants has been made a class. Now there's a scary thought- a church class organized by a man who does not believe in the divinity of Jesus!
The man with whom I am exchanging emails has more traditional Christian values than I. He asserts the Bible is literal and that Jesus is the Son of God, and that the only way to salvation is through Jesus. These are, of course, the core tenets of Christianity. In essence, they are Literality, that the claims made in the Bible are true and real, and Exclusivity, that only through Jesus are we Saved, that only through him do we find God.
I believe completely, intrinsically, in a creator, interventionalist God. I do so not simply for the logical, mathematical arguments put forth by authors such as Dean Overman but because of direct, personal experience. I have had profound, personal and direct experiences of the numinous, and I have no reason to doubt them or question their nature. But I do not believe in Literality or Exclusivity. The reasons are not based in 'reason' or lack of 'faith' but rather closer to the dialectic proof of Anselm.
Let us simply assume the relative historicity of Abram, Moses and Jesus. Not necessarily every word as literal, but that men lived that had their experiences. God speaks to Adam, to Cain and to Abram. God appears as a burning bush to Moses. How would that experience have been received? It was a heterodox experience, a unique and new experience. Did that make Moses weird, a heretic, apostate? He did not just hear God; he SAW God as a burning bush. Jesus, regardless of his nature, had a clear and personal experience of God, unless we are to reject completely the material in the Gospels. He spoke a new and unique message- that the ritually unclean were acceptable at meals, and before God. This flew violently in the face of Temple Judaism, so much so that, if the story in the Synoptics is accepted, he was condemned as a blasphemer and killed.
But now Christians articulate that all those experiences are the True and Only path to God, the only way. In their own day these men were heretics and unique, doubted by their culture or even killed for their public beliefs. Mohamed, coming after Jesus, did not deny him. He praised him as 'the most blameless of the prophets'. Mohamed's great experience was that there is only one God. Not many, not 'God in three persons and one substance', not God united with a man. Just God. And Christians say this is heresy, to deny the divinity of Jesus.
But why should Mohamed's personal and unique experience of God be denied while others are given not simply the stamp of authenticity but Exclusivity? Claiming exclusivity for your particular beliefs automatically invalidates them! They were originally heresies themselves. If a new, unique insight into God is a heresy then why not yours? Why not all? If we accept, as biblical literalists must, that God has revealed Himself in diverse ways, why is it that suddenly God only reveals Himself in one way? How come God, the infinite and unknowable, is suddenly bound and confined within your particular belief in His manifestation?
Such claims can be excused as human pride in a unique and powerful spiritual expression of the divine except for the destructiveness of the belief. In the name of Exclusivity and Literality millions have been killed, others ostracized by Christian and Muslim alike. Is THAT a manifestation of God? That you get to condemn and kill others in the name of your particular belief? I have heard God speak to me many times, always simple, always direct, and always in the same manner. God has never endorsed my violence or rage, has never encouraged my pride or my vanity. God has never told me to kill or condemn anyone, even those who have hurt, abused or enraged me.
So, on the basis of personal experience as well as the simplest of reading, I can not accept any claims of Exclusivity or Literality. Anyone's. I don't make such a claim and no one else has any basis for it either. Any claims like that are a denial of the Divine, of the Numinous. The very idea that God can be confined within the tenets of a particular human religion is a fundamental misunderstanding and limitation of the Numinous. I understand God in a Judeo-Christian way, but like the story of Pentecost, where every man heard the Spirit of God in their own language, God manifests Himself in so many ways, and uniquely to every person. They only need to seek and listen.
Ted
The man with whom I am exchanging emails has more traditional Christian values than I. He asserts the Bible is literal and that Jesus is the Son of God, and that the only way to salvation is through Jesus. These are, of course, the core tenets of Christianity. In essence, they are Literality, that the claims made in the Bible are true and real, and Exclusivity, that only through Jesus are we Saved, that only through him do we find God.
I believe completely, intrinsically, in a creator, interventionalist God. I do so not simply for the logical, mathematical arguments put forth by authors such as Dean Overman but because of direct, personal experience. I have had profound, personal and direct experiences of the numinous, and I have no reason to doubt them or question their nature. But I do not believe in Literality or Exclusivity. The reasons are not based in 'reason' or lack of 'faith' but rather closer to the dialectic proof of Anselm.
Let us simply assume the relative historicity of Abram, Moses and Jesus. Not necessarily every word as literal, but that men lived that had their experiences. God speaks to Adam, to Cain and to Abram. God appears as a burning bush to Moses. How would that experience have been received? It was a heterodox experience, a unique and new experience. Did that make Moses weird, a heretic, apostate? He did not just hear God; he SAW God as a burning bush. Jesus, regardless of his nature, had a clear and personal experience of God, unless we are to reject completely the material in the Gospels. He spoke a new and unique message- that the ritually unclean were acceptable at meals, and before God. This flew violently in the face of Temple Judaism, so much so that, if the story in the Synoptics is accepted, he was condemned as a blasphemer and killed.
But now Christians articulate that all those experiences are the True and Only path to God, the only way. In their own day these men were heretics and unique, doubted by their culture or even killed for their public beliefs. Mohamed, coming after Jesus, did not deny him. He praised him as 'the most blameless of the prophets'. Mohamed's great experience was that there is only one God. Not many, not 'God in three persons and one substance', not God united with a man. Just God. And Christians say this is heresy, to deny the divinity of Jesus.
But why should Mohamed's personal and unique experience of God be denied while others are given not simply the stamp of authenticity but Exclusivity? Claiming exclusivity for your particular beliefs automatically invalidates them! They were originally heresies themselves. If a new, unique insight into God is a heresy then why not yours? Why not all? If we accept, as biblical literalists must, that God has revealed Himself in diverse ways, why is it that suddenly God only reveals Himself in one way? How come God, the infinite and unknowable, is suddenly bound and confined within your particular belief in His manifestation?
Such claims can be excused as human pride in a unique and powerful spiritual expression of the divine except for the destructiveness of the belief. In the name of Exclusivity and Literality millions have been killed, others ostracized by Christian and Muslim alike. Is THAT a manifestation of God? That you get to condemn and kill others in the name of your particular belief? I have heard God speak to me many times, always simple, always direct, and always in the same manner. God has never endorsed my violence or rage, has never encouraged my pride or my vanity. God has never told me to kill or condemn anyone, even those who have hurt, abused or enraged me.
So, on the basis of personal experience as well as the simplest of reading, I can not accept any claims of Exclusivity or Literality. Anyone's. I don't make such a claim and no one else has any basis for it either. Any claims like that are a denial of the Divine, of the Numinous. The very idea that God can be confined within the tenets of a particular human religion is a fundamental misunderstanding and limitation of the Numinous. I understand God in a Judeo-Christian way, but like the story of Pentecost, where every man heard the Spirit of God in their own language, God manifests Himself in so many ways, and uniquely to every person. They only need to seek and listen.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment