Could we move beyond the various names for God? To presume to know the name of God is to presume the power and authority to summon Him and to control Him. We realize today that this is not possible. It is in fact blasphemous in most mainline religions to even suggest that we might be able to control God. Yet we continue to imply that we can by presuming to name the God who has no name, because He needs no name. He is the only God there is. Could we, perhaps, even move beyond minimizing God by insisting He created the world only a few years ago compared to an awesome and almost incomprehensible number of years ago simply because we want to assert our dominion over all other forms of life? I don’t care what any book has to say about it, that is absurd.
God doesn’t need to write a book through various ghostwriters about His accomplishments. He can speak for Himself, and He has -- in His creation. We simply need to look at it more closely than we are in the habit of doing, and then determine the approximate time of creation by using the reason God gave us. Besides, we’ve already established our dominion, often by simply wiping out other forms of life.
Let’s talk about God honestly and openly, and let’s start at the beginning. Not the beginning of God or of Earth or of life or of us, but the beginning of our experience of God. And then let’s continue on, discussing our growth in understanding and even our continuing growth in understanding. Contrary to the opinion of many believers, we still have a long way to go. God in our lives is an unfolding revelation rather than a sudden and complete understanding. It began at the very beginning of Mankind, and from the point of view of the evolutionist (which I am) even long before, and it will continue until our individual demise, Mankind’s demise, and for those of faith (of which I am one) long after the demise of Mankind.
Who is God? God is just beyond your reach, always elusive, always there. You feel His presence in your darkest despair, sometimes welcome, sometimes not, but not obtrusive, just there. Reaching out you can almost touch His hand, but never quite. Conversations are never really completed, yet never unfinished. You talk. He listens. His side of the conversation is silent, but the quiet is a shout just beyond comprehension, easily understood, unless you listen too closely. Then it fades away. Let the shout enfold you and it becomes part of you. If you seek God, you will not find Him. He stands beside you and you cannot see Him, because you are looking into the far distance. Turning, you walk right through Him as you stare at the sky. He is not up there. God is a mystery. He will always be a mystery, but He will never be a puzzle. No matter how much you know, you will not know Him. No matter how little you know, He is easily understood. To say you know God is arrogant. It presumes a knowledge you do not have. To say you do not know God is ignorant. You know Him very well. You are ignoring Him.
Is God offended when you ignore Him? I cannot imagine in my wildest imaginings why He would be. Does He care if you ignore Him? Again, in my wildest imaginings I cannot conceive of any reason why He should. I suspect He may even admire you for ignoring Him. That, of course, would be my Christian background speaking. God respects us. He encourages us to set out on our own just as any good father would. You see, the early Christian theologians did a really remarkable thing with Pagan theology. They adapted it to Christian cosmology. God became family. He created us, thus becoming the father of us all. This reflects the very ancient view of those who domesticated animals and tilled the earth -- Mother Earth. The idea is that we were all born from the earth and we all return to it in death. She was family, but bound us to her much too closely for the warrior class to accept. They preferred the God of thunder and lightening, the God in the sky, and so Mother Earth was abandoned. Christians see themselves as children of God. At the same time they see Him as all powerful, not confined to this planet. The Mother Earth theology still hangs on, though, in the gods controlling the other planets in our solar system: Mercury, Mars, Venus, Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune, and Uranus.
But not only did God create us, He came to live among us. This again diverts Pagan theology to Christian concepts. God came to live among us as one of us. He joined our family, born as a child, raised by human parents, and finally dying an ignoble death, cursed to be bound by the futility of His soul trying to escape from the crossed paths of a tree. But God cannot be bound, and so broke the bounds of this age-old superstition and all superstition that would bind us. God cannot be bound and neither can His children. Only we can allow ourselves to be bound by such nonsense now and in the future. There is nothing that can contain us unless we allow it to do so. We are God’s children.
There is more. Not only did God the father come to live among us, He came to live among us as one of us. He came as His own son. He was just like us. He expected no privileges the rest of us do not have. This point has become so wrapped up in the attempt to explain it in a previous age that it is almost incomprehensible to us today. As a result, many are pulled into a kind of Pagan mythology that completely misses the point of scripture in this day and age. Our understanding of God is still governed by a centuries old cosmology. It was certainly understood in this earlier age, but times change and language changes and our knowledge of the world around us changes. We are faced with a choice: reject the mythology that has developed around the resurrection or reject what we know to be true. It is not a choice we should have to make, but we must because many of our religious leaders have not moved beyond their Pagan perceptions. They refuse to reaffirm the deeper significance of God coming among us, living as one of us, and dying as one of us.
And it doesn’t stop there. God stayed behind and is still among us as part of us. This is an insight so deep it is frightening. Pagans had a father god, a mother god and a child god. The natural conclusion of a Pagan theology would be that Mary, the mother of Jesus, would be the mother God, with Jesus the child God.
This completely misses the significance of God among us. God must be complete. He cannot be separated into parts or His point in joining us is lost in the complexity of family relationships. The God story becomes just another fairy tale without any real significance.
The point is that God is a part of us. It’s the part that binds us together emotionally. We are blood. A common ancestor, Adam, connects us as humans. A common brother, Jesus of Nazareth, connects us to God. The question then becomes “How much like a human father is God?” and “How much like a human mother is God?” Mothers and fathers play significantly different roles in the raising of their children. This is basically an instinctive response to parenthood, but much of it is also a cultural development of the parental instinct --the fathering instinct and the mothering instinct. Instinct is important to us because it is what has kept us alive and has contributed to our evolution. God has not evolved. He is what He was, is, and ever will be. He does not have a parental instinct. He is what He decides to be. This doesn’t mean He changes, but it does mean He could change if He wanted to. It is, however, inconceivable that He would change just because He can. He is God. He chose to be as He is. Whatever He chose cannot be improved upon. I say again, “He is God!” Whatever He chose is perfect. It has to be. It can not be made better.
Then what was the point in His coming among us as part of our family? The answer is clear. Of all the things we’ve done, good and bad, family was significant enough to be affirmed by God Himself. This is the relationship we should cultivate among ourselves. It is the one thing that makes us significant in this universe. If there are other intelligent beings somewhere in outer space, and there surely are, they are more than likely very different from us in their evolutionary development.
The instincts that contributed to their survival and to their evolution are almost surely very different from our own. I would guess that God would affirm them in a different way. Family could be of some value to these aliens even though it be a completely foreign concept to them now, yet one that could contribute to their future as the concept God has affirmed among them could be to us --a concept that we may find completely alien, but perhaps useful to our becoming better, stronger, more complete.
My point is this. God has become part of our family, but we make a horrible mistake if we attempt to obligate or limit Him to our instinctive responses and to our cultural biases. We can’t say, “You are our father, so you must...,” or “You promised….” It will have to be enough to know that He is family, that He cares, and that He wants the best for us. The rest is presumptuous and too often arrogant.
But again, I must admit this is my perspective as a Christian. Not all Christians believe in the trinity relationship of God to mankind, and certainly no other religion accepts it. I do not mean to present it as an established fact, but it is certainly a fascinating concept, and has great potential. Other religions have a more realistic view of God’s relationship to Mankind, but their expectations of Mankind often seem unrealistic and nonproductive. That, of course, could be (and probably is) a reflection of my ignorance.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Time
Does Time actually exist in the world outside of ourselves or is it intuited (an evolutionary awareness)? Perhaps our rational self invented Time as a convenient way to simplify complex spatial relationships between objects.
Whatever the case, Time is a rich field for mythological and evolutionary consideration since it seems to be a perfect example of mythological thinking [insightful but not necessarily factual] and possibly intuitive (the result of evolution).
We talk about time as if it were a commodity -- "I will do it when I have time...," as if it were currency -- “Spend some time with me ...," as if it were a place -- "I won’t forget the time we met....” It is a word that is defined more by our awareness of it than by any real understanding of it.
Let’s suppose that time is a measurement much like any other extension. If it is like up and down or forward and backward or left and right, then there must be a real tomorrow and a real yesterday, and our present position in time is simply where we happen to be in relation to the two, so we should be able to move forward in time faster than we are moving at present, and we should be able to move backward time-wise simply by turning in the direction of yesterday and moving back in time. Since we cannot, surely we must assume that time is not really an extension (a dimension). It must be somehow different.
Perhaps we devour it, use it up. Perhaps today is just digesting what was yesterday and the past is no more, having been transformed into today, then transformed into now; we can truly say, “You have used up your time.” If yesterday has been devoured and is no more, then what is happening to today? Are we being devoured as we speak and transformed into a new us with each second that passes? Is what we remember just a vestige of what once really was and is no more and tomorrow not really there? That is, in fact, what we have come to believe, but is it true? Are we really standing on a precipice (actually a pinnacle) with nothing before or behind us? We do seem to be moving blindly through time, whereas in space we can see what’s around us and act accordingly. In time, we have only our memories to guide us, nothing else, except perhaps our imagination. At this point things really begin to get weird. Science tells us that time is not really an extension; it is not constant; the faster we move the more time we cover, while those moving more slowly than we cover less time in the same time. That, of course, is impossible. Yet it seems to be a fact and is provable. How it is possible brings us back to the question -- "What is time?” It appears to be something other than an extension; something other than another dimension. Is it really?
Suppose time is a field on which extension grows or flows, a canvas upon which dimension is painted. This would make the passage of time depending on speed more understandable, but still confusing. For example, the direction of your travel does not determine the direction of the passage of time. It always moves forward. Suppose you travel to a planet light years away and you travel very fast. Say it took you only a few years. Actually, because you traveled very fast centuries have passed. Suppose you decide to return to Earth and you traveled so fast it only took you another two years. By traveling in the opposite direction, you would not travel back in time; you would move forward in time even more centuries, in addition to those you accumulated traveling to the faraway planet. In fact, traveling in circles very fast propels you forward into time faster than those around you moving more slowly. (Don’t try this. I suspect centrifugal force would tear you asunder.) The point is that the field of time, if it indeed be a field, does not seem to be a dimensional extension.
There are some problems with thinking of time as being a field. If you travel through time more quickly than your slower-moving neighbors, you obviously occupy your own private field of time which you take with you on your journey; it is just moving slower inside your fast-moving time capsule, so to speak, than outside your encapsulated space. Are there then two time fields, one moving over the other? Suppose there is a very large capsule light years in size moving very fast in comparison to its surroundings, and you are within this very large vessel and moving much faster than it is. Do you have a field of time moving over a field of time moving over a field of time? What are the consequences? What does this imply?
Remember the heated discussions in high school and in college cafeterias and dorm rooms about just this sort of nonsense? It didn’t matter that we were totally ignorant. We had just discovered something that contradicted everything we once took for granted, and it was exhilarating. It was something that our teachers and our professors knew little more about than we did, and we speculated in a social environment without bounds. These were moments when learning was so much fun we were motivated to actually study so that we could bring new information to the group.
Politics and social conflict today have made us so serious and, on occasion, even vindictive that we have forgotten how to have fun without indulging our senses. We prefer being ignorant to seeming ignorant, and so avoid the risky subjects and accept as true the claims of those we admire without bothering to verify their claims. I’m not suggesting that we stop trusting those around us, but we need to realize that everyone has an agenda and even our friends fall prey to the temptation of prevarication.
Whatever the case, Time is a rich field for mythological and evolutionary consideration since it seems to be a perfect example of mythological thinking [insightful but not necessarily factual] and possibly intuitive (the result of evolution).
We talk about time as if it were a commodity -- "I will do it when I have time...," as if it were currency -- “Spend some time with me ...," as if it were a place -- "I won’t forget the time we met....” It is a word that is defined more by our awareness of it than by any real understanding of it.
Let’s suppose that time is a measurement much like any other extension. If it is like up and down or forward and backward or left and right, then there must be a real tomorrow and a real yesterday, and our present position in time is simply where we happen to be in relation to the two, so we should be able to move forward in time faster than we are moving at present, and we should be able to move backward time-wise simply by turning in the direction of yesterday and moving back in time. Since we cannot, surely we must assume that time is not really an extension (a dimension). It must be somehow different.
Perhaps we devour it, use it up. Perhaps today is just digesting what was yesterday and the past is no more, having been transformed into today, then transformed into now; we can truly say, “You have used up your time.” If yesterday has been devoured and is no more, then what is happening to today? Are we being devoured as we speak and transformed into a new us with each second that passes? Is what we remember just a vestige of what once really was and is no more and tomorrow not really there? That is, in fact, what we have come to believe, but is it true? Are we really standing on a precipice (actually a pinnacle) with nothing before or behind us? We do seem to be moving blindly through time, whereas in space we can see what’s around us and act accordingly. In time, we have only our memories to guide us, nothing else, except perhaps our imagination. At this point things really begin to get weird. Science tells us that time is not really an extension; it is not constant; the faster we move the more time we cover, while those moving more slowly than we cover less time in the same time. That, of course, is impossible. Yet it seems to be a fact and is provable. How it is possible brings us back to the question -- "What is time?” It appears to be something other than an extension; something other than another dimension. Is it really?
Suppose time is a field on which extension grows or flows, a canvas upon which dimension is painted. This would make the passage of time depending on speed more understandable, but still confusing. For example, the direction of your travel does not determine the direction of the passage of time. It always moves forward. Suppose you travel to a planet light years away and you travel very fast. Say it took you only a few years. Actually, because you traveled very fast centuries have passed. Suppose you decide to return to Earth and you traveled so fast it only took you another two years. By traveling in the opposite direction, you would not travel back in time; you would move forward in time even more centuries, in addition to those you accumulated traveling to the faraway planet. In fact, traveling in circles very fast propels you forward into time faster than those around you moving more slowly. (Don’t try this. I suspect centrifugal force would tear you asunder.) The point is that the field of time, if it indeed be a field, does not seem to be a dimensional extension.
There are some problems with thinking of time as being a field. If you travel through time more quickly than your slower-moving neighbors, you obviously occupy your own private field of time which you take with you on your journey; it is just moving slower inside your fast-moving time capsule, so to speak, than outside your encapsulated space. Are there then two time fields, one moving over the other? Suppose there is a very large capsule light years in size moving very fast in comparison to its surroundings, and you are within this very large vessel and moving much faster than it is. Do you have a field of time moving over a field of time moving over a field of time? What are the consequences? What does this imply?
Remember the heated discussions in high school and in college cafeterias and dorm rooms about just this sort of nonsense? It didn’t matter that we were totally ignorant. We had just discovered something that contradicted everything we once took for granted, and it was exhilarating. It was something that our teachers and our professors knew little more about than we did, and we speculated in a social environment without bounds. These were moments when learning was so much fun we were motivated to actually study so that we could bring new information to the group.
Politics and social conflict today have made us so serious and, on occasion, even vindictive that we have forgotten how to have fun without indulging our senses. We prefer being ignorant to seeming ignorant, and so avoid the risky subjects and accept as true the claims of those we admire without bothering to verify their claims. I’m not suggesting that we stop trusting those around us, but we need to realize that everyone has an agenda and even our friends fall prey to the temptation of prevarication.
Creation
God had a choice when he created us and our reality. He could create us from His own substance and separate Himself from that substance. We would therefore be perfect and good, but two perfect beings would seem to be a contradiction. I am convinced that God could have done this if He had wanted, but it seems unlikely that He would. God already is. There would be no reason to create another.
His second choice could have been to create us and our reality as part of himself. We would live out our lives in paradise and we would be part of God and parts of God would be us. Some of us predict such an event on our death. I suspect this is wishful thinking. Since we were not created as part of God, there is little reason to suspect we would become part of God when we die. I could be wrong of course.
You may be able to suggest other possibilities, or you may believe He actually did make one of the above choices.
Assuming, however, that He made the choice to create us and our reality separate from Himself and of something He created out of nothing rather than out of Himself, a problem arises. If God alone is good, then what is not God is bad by the very fact of its being not God. Can a good God create something bad, even evil, like us? If He is indeed omnipotent, then of course He could, though to us it would appear a contradiction to the idea of a perfectly good God. I believe God can and has created contradictions. We haven’t accepted any yet, and we possibly never will, but God can do what He wants. That must be accepted if God is all-powerful. I think we will find contradictions. We may already have begun to find them. If we have found them, we have made up rules explaining why they are not contradictions.
Let’s assume God did create existence and that He created it from scratch, and not from His substance. Being separate from God, we are not good and have the potential for evil. We were, however, created in God’s image. Not from His substance, but in His image. Though we are not God and never will come close to being God, we are God’s reflection. A not very good analogy, but the best I can come up with, is a mirror. There is, of course, no real mirror and perhaps a holographic image would be more acceptable. The point is, we are a reflection. In a God sense, we are not real. We are only a reflection of what is real, in the sense that only God is really real rather than in the sense that our reality is real.
Since we do not really exist in a God sense, the bad that we are and the evil that we can become only exists in our perception of it. We are what we are. We are not God, but we are enabled as the image of God to see God in our own reflection and in the reflection of others.
Now comes the hard part. God did not create just us. He created creation. We are only part of that creation; the part of creation that is not us is also God’s reflection. The only difference between rational creatures and the rest of creation is that when God looks at His reflection, we look back. To think that God looks at His image and sees only us is an arrogance born of being made of something other than God. We have been blessed beyond other life on this planet (and I emphasize this planet) with an enhanced ability to see through God’s eyes, so to speak, to step out of ourselves and view the world with some degree of objectivity. I say an enhanced ability, because I do not really know whether other life on this planet has this ability to some lesser degree. Since we have so much trouble exercising this ability for any extended period of time, I think probably not. So we are alone facing God.
How do we know we are facing God? We pretend we have confronted God through some rational realization, or we accept hearsay evidence that others have met God and, even though rationally we find that extremely unlikely, we accept the possibility. It is difficult to understand why we do and yet we believe these people, even though we know that people lie. A natural consequence of our determination to stay alive becomes a determination to dominate, and what better way to dominate than to claim access to something beyond the control of others, something that could enhance or threaten their continued existence. Yet, knowing this, we accept their assertion despite the lack of any evidence to support their claims, often despite the fact that those making such claims have long been dead.
Why do we repeatedly claim to prove something which has been repeatedly proven false? Why do we make up stories that are obviously not true, certainly not verifiable, contrary to everything we have experienced, and which apparently contribute nothing to our survival? (From an evolutionist point of view such an unjustified but universal and persistent pretension must contribute something to our survival, or at least in some way be associated with our determination to stay alive.)
I would suggest that our awareness of God is an apprehension rather than a comprehension, that it is intuitive rather than deductive, that it is irrational (instinctive) rather than rational, and that we are so embarrassed by being irrational (by having instincts) and thus not set apart from the animal kingdom that we rationalize the irrational. We pretend we know God’s presence when we actually only feel His presence. We are consequently forced to prove His existence no matter how foolish the proof may be, and we will defend that proof as if our very lives depended on it.
That is the danger of rationalizing the irrational. It creates a conflicted reality, subjective (which we are) against objective (which we strive toward). When our subjective self cannot successfully adapt objective reality to our expectations and we are unwilling or unable to adapt, we become nihilistic. We wish the termination of objective reality. We create Heaven as the realization of our rationalized irrational yearnings and/or turn to prophecy and revelations, however absurd, as our justification and our hope, and we consequently waste what could be a productive and joyful life yearning for something that is not and never will be.
His second choice could have been to create us and our reality as part of himself. We would live out our lives in paradise and we would be part of God and parts of God would be us. Some of us predict such an event on our death. I suspect this is wishful thinking. Since we were not created as part of God, there is little reason to suspect we would become part of God when we die. I could be wrong of course.
You may be able to suggest other possibilities, or you may believe He actually did make one of the above choices.
Assuming, however, that He made the choice to create us and our reality separate from Himself and of something He created out of nothing rather than out of Himself, a problem arises. If God alone is good, then what is not God is bad by the very fact of its being not God. Can a good God create something bad, even evil, like us? If He is indeed omnipotent, then of course He could, though to us it would appear a contradiction to the idea of a perfectly good God. I believe God can and has created contradictions. We haven’t accepted any yet, and we possibly never will, but God can do what He wants. That must be accepted if God is all-powerful. I think we will find contradictions. We may already have begun to find them. If we have found them, we have made up rules explaining why they are not contradictions.
Let’s assume God did create existence and that He created it from scratch, and not from His substance. Being separate from God, we are not good and have the potential for evil. We were, however, created in God’s image. Not from His substance, but in His image. Though we are not God and never will come close to being God, we are God’s reflection. A not very good analogy, but the best I can come up with, is a mirror. There is, of course, no real mirror and perhaps a holographic image would be more acceptable. The point is, we are a reflection. In a God sense, we are not real. We are only a reflection of what is real, in the sense that only God is really real rather than in the sense that our reality is real.
Since we do not really exist in a God sense, the bad that we are and the evil that we can become only exists in our perception of it. We are what we are. We are not God, but we are enabled as the image of God to see God in our own reflection and in the reflection of others.
Now comes the hard part. God did not create just us. He created creation. We are only part of that creation; the part of creation that is not us is also God’s reflection. The only difference between rational creatures and the rest of creation is that when God looks at His reflection, we look back. To think that God looks at His image and sees only us is an arrogance born of being made of something other than God. We have been blessed beyond other life on this planet (and I emphasize this planet) with an enhanced ability to see through God’s eyes, so to speak, to step out of ourselves and view the world with some degree of objectivity. I say an enhanced ability, because I do not really know whether other life on this planet has this ability to some lesser degree. Since we have so much trouble exercising this ability for any extended period of time, I think probably not. So we are alone facing God.
How do we know we are facing God? We pretend we have confronted God through some rational realization, or we accept hearsay evidence that others have met God and, even though rationally we find that extremely unlikely, we accept the possibility. It is difficult to understand why we do and yet we believe these people, even though we know that people lie. A natural consequence of our determination to stay alive becomes a determination to dominate, and what better way to dominate than to claim access to something beyond the control of others, something that could enhance or threaten their continued existence. Yet, knowing this, we accept their assertion despite the lack of any evidence to support their claims, often despite the fact that those making such claims have long been dead.
Why do we repeatedly claim to prove something which has been repeatedly proven false? Why do we make up stories that are obviously not true, certainly not verifiable, contrary to everything we have experienced, and which apparently contribute nothing to our survival? (From an evolutionist point of view such an unjustified but universal and persistent pretension must contribute something to our survival, or at least in some way be associated with our determination to stay alive.)
I would suggest that our awareness of God is an apprehension rather than a comprehension, that it is intuitive rather than deductive, that it is irrational (instinctive) rather than rational, and that we are so embarrassed by being irrational (by having instincts) and thus not set apart from the animal kingdom that we rationalize the irrational. We pretend we know God’s presence when we actually only feel His presence. We are consequently forced to prove His existence no matter how foolish the proof may be, and we will defend that proof as if our very lives depended on it.
That is the danger of rationalizing the irrational. It creates a conflicted reality, subjective (which we are) against objective (which we strive toward). When our subjective self cannot successfully adapt objective reality to our expectations and we are unwilling or unable to adapt, we become nihilistic. We wish the termination of objective reality. We create Heaven as the realization of our rationalized irrational yearnings and/or turn to prophecy and revelations, however absurd, as our justification and our hope, and we consequently waste what could be a productive and joyful life yearning for something that is not and never will be.
Eden
You are green,
And your arms reach up
To touch the sky
Gently, gently,
How I love you
You are blue,
Soft and smiling,
Kissing cool a promise
Gently, gently
How I love you
You are red,
Drawing me to you
Burning hot
Gently, gently
How I love you
You are yellow,
Burning softly with your head
Upon my shoulder
Gently, gently
How I love you
You are black,
Restful soft as satin
Hands upon my chest
Gently, gently
How I love you
You are white,
Curving over hills and valleys
Distance blinding
Gently, gently
How I love you
You are brown,
Earth and growing things
Come to life within you
Gently, gently
How I love you
You are flesh
And next to me where I can touch you
From time to time
Gently, gently
How I love you
And your arms reach up
To touch the sky
Gently, gently,
How I love you
You are blue,
Soft and smiling,
Kissing cool a promise
Gently, gently
How I love you
You are red,
Drawing me to you
Burning hot
Gently, gently
How I love you
You are yellow,
Burning softly with your head
Upon my shoulder
Gently, gently
How I love you
You are black,
Restful soft as satin
Hands upon my chest
Gently, gently
How I love you
You are white,
Curving over hills and valleys
Distance blinding
Gently, gently
How I love you
You are brown,
Earth and growing things
Come to life within you
Gently, gently
How I love you
You are flesh
And next to me where I can touch you
From time to time
Gently, gently
How I love you
Eve
God
God created
God created big time
God created so much big time
There was little time left
But there was enough little time left to matter
There was now matter that mattered
As well as matter that did not matter
There was matter and there was not matter
Matter scattered
Matter flourished and it mattered more and more
Until it moved mountains
And ran into the sea
Where it began to see
And to hear
And to taste
And to smell
And to feel
And it looked at itself
And it heard itself
And it became aware
Of tasting
And of smelling
And of feeling
And it felt for itself
It began to ask questions
And it began to answer its questions
It began to think
Matter had become aware of itself
And somewhere something said
“It is good."
God created
God created big time
God created so much big time
There was little time left
But there was enough little time left to matter
There was now matter that mattered
As well as matter that did not matter
There was matter and there was not matter
Matter scattered
Matter flourished and it mattered more and more
Until it moved mountains
And ran into the sea
Where it began to see
And to hear
And to taste
And to smell
And to feel
And it looked at itself
And it heard itself
And it became aware
Of tasting
And of smelling
And of feeling
And it felt for itself
It began to ask questions
And it began to answer its questions
It began to think
Matter had become aware of itself
And somewhere something said
“It is good."
Adam
There has been controversy over the past two decades concerning the origin of the world. The basic difference between the two sides had originally been the source of verifiable information pertaining to the solution of this problem: religious revelation (documented in holy books) or scientific research (trial and error). This has changed. Though religious documentation has not been abandoned, the revelations revealed therein have been proclaimed by some to have scientific justification.
Since religious mythology has encroached onto scientific endeavor, it seems only fair that scientific conclusions venture into the domain of mythology. That is what I intend to do here but, unlike religion which proclaims their revelations to be more than mythological, I do not make such a claim. The conclusions herein, based on the scientifically proven fact of evolution, are enthusiastically embraced as no more (and no less) than pure mythology. Just as Plato used Socrates’ proof of human cognition to launch the mythology of a perfect world (Heaven) of which the world we inhabit is just a reflection, so I will attempt to launch the mythological consequences of evolution.
Let’s begin with the beginning according to Jewish, Christian, and Islamic writings -- Genesis (creation itself). How the cosmos began is not really addressed here so much as the origin and subsequent development of the human animal. The creation of the cosmos is pretty much determined by this otherwise pitifully insignificant event because, while Genesis suggests that only a few thousand years have elapsed, most of the scientific community has determined that several million (even several billion) years were required for it to have occurred, and scientists claim to have proven their case. The Evangelical community, on the other hand, has claimed it can scientifically prove that the science of most scientists is faulty and that scientists have proven nothing.
Thus begins my version of the mythological consequences of evolution. There is a story whose mythological basis would seem to precede the genesis story of Adam and Eve. The first human created, it says, was neither (or both) male and/or female. When this creature displeased the Creator, She/He/It divided this person into two separate but equal parts and placed each on opposite sides of the world. Since that separation, each has been desperately seeking its other half.
The romantic result from this mythological separation has been a quest for the perfect mate. The chance for this search to be successful is very small, but there is always (usually futile) hope.
Along these lines some scientists (I cannot emphasize enough that most scientists have rejected this idea as ridiculous and with no scientific justification at all, and those who made this suggestion now seem very, very embarrassed by it) have suggested that all our organs could be the result of an attempt by one organism to invade, and another organism to envelop. Rather than one organism devouring the other from the inside, or the other organism digesting the invading organism, a parasitic relationship developed which over time resulted in a symbiotic relationship, the invading organism finding a nurturing environment within the other organism and the other benefiting from the additional resources provided by the invading organism.
Having thus explained (mythologically of course) Eve, the next step would be the origin of Adam. In other words, how did male and female come to be? What is male and what is female? A puzzle even more intriguing than the creation (evolution) of man is the separation of humans and most plants and animals into male and female. How have what appear to be two completely opposite species been incorporated into one body? The mythological possibilities are overwhelming, but only one will be presented here -- my mythology of the consequences of evolution.
Though complex, early life forms were relatively simple in relation to plants and animals today. For example, there is a primordial amoeba and there is what has remained a life form so primordial many question whether it is really a life form at all -- the virus. Viruses invade a cell (amoeba-like organism) and use that cell’s resources to replace its DNA with that of the virus many times over. When the cell’s resources are depleted, the now many viruses burst forth to seek new prey. The cell (an amoeba-like organism) gains sustenance by absorbing nutrients (including any nearby living organisms). Suppose it is unable to digest or eject some of these organisms, including a viral infection. Suppose further that the virus is unable to completely destroy all the DNA of the cell (amoeba-like organism) leaving only part of its DNA attached to the remnants of the cell’s DNA. Thus the virus is unable to reproduce itself, partly because it cannot escape and partly because it is no longer its original self. Neither is the cell its original self.
A cell reproduces by dividing itself. This the original cell can do, but its progeny cannot. They are sterile mutants, some with a majority of predominantly viral genes and some with a majority of predominantly cellular (amoeba-like) genes. Being sterile they should have died out but the viral mutant, still with its hunter instincts, sought out the amoeba-like cell and attempted to invade it; and the amoeba-like cell, still with its appetite for surrounding nutrients, exuded chemicals to attract suitable prey to envelop. Both succeeded, the one releasing some of its preponderantly viral genes into the predominantly amoeba-like cell and the amoeba-like cell, having engulfed the viral cell, by incorporating enough of the viral cells into its DNA to reproduce.
This would be a greatly simplified version of what might (mythologically, of course) have happened. From the predominantly amoeba-like cell there is a primordial need to feed, just as there is from the predominantly viral cell a primordial need to seek out, invade, and ultimately destroy. The predominately amoeba-like cell, however, does not seek out prey so much as attract it and absorb it when invaded. Thus it sends out signals -- chemicals, vibrations, or some other method of attraction -- which makes the predominantly viral cell aware of its presence. Thus you have the situation of two life forms, each the natural prey of the other, but necessary for propagation (sometimes of one and sometimes of the other) based largely on chance.
Some will make much of human habits that seem to suggest this myth is actual fact, such as men talking to other men about women with contempt and women talking to other women about men with contempt. For men there is the superior tone in the word “sissy” meaning “like a girl” and the antagonistic tone in the word “witch” meaning “devious woman.” For women there is the superior tone in “child” meaning “easily manipulated” and the antagonistic tone in the word “Neanderthal” meaning “cannot be reasoned with.” Others might make a strong case for just such a difference being portrayed in literature as male-female conflict down through the ages.
For those who take this direction, I would point out that the male-female phenomenon is found throughout the animal kingdom and also the plant kingdom. The consequences are so diverse that it would be difficult to make a case supporting the mythology even if it were, in fact, actual fact. Using such arguments as the above to prove the validity of the mythological consequences of evolution is just as foolish as using cognition as proof for the existence of Heaven.
The mythological consequence of evolution is in the primordial interaction of male and female in one’s self -- a chemical warfare for control of our instinctive reaction to our environment. The masculine monster says hunt down, kill, and tear asunder everything you find until there is nothing left. The female monster says absorb and digest everything within reach and attract whatever is out of reach until it is close enough to engulf. Both strategies are ultimately suicidal, but both make remarkably successful killing machines and both experience an ultimate “gotcha” feeling of satisfaction at the moment life is extinguished from its prey.
I would add something else to this mythology. Let’s say there is a God and that this God, though He/She/It neither protects me nor gives me power over my enemies, does want the best for me. That best might be life beyond this life, but it could just as easily be the end of my life being the end of me. Let us also say that that final decision is not mine to make, nor am I entitled to earn a reprieve or any other consideration based on good behavior. Still, if God does care (as It/She/He does in this mythology of mine) what possible reason could She/He/It have to bring these two monsters together in this one body?
I would point out further mythological consequences. The female monster that would, much like the blob of science fiction, engulf and absorb the entire world has -- thanks to the male monster -- become maternal, caring for others, appreciative of beauty and order, creating them even. The male monster that would seek out, destroy and tear apart anything and everything has -- thanks to the female monster -- become courageous, protecting his friends and family, seeking out new frontiers to explore, and finding new ways to go beyond overwhelming barriers.
The strength of a mythology is in its point, which is solid enough to be commonly perceived but vague enough to fit every person’s personality and situation. Its weakness is the tendency of some to take it too literally and too seriously, thus nullifying any value it might have. In spite of this, I am going to risk offering my response to this mythology. Hopefully, that point is vague enough to be useful.
If we have survived, and perhaps become more deserving of survival, while this continuing struggle between our male nature and our female nature -- two totally alien species -- rages within us, could we be preparing ourselves for even more alien encounters? I admit we do not seem to be doing well at the moment, as we systematically exterminate other species and even large portions of our own species, but at least we seem to have the potential, through our primeval internal struggle, to be prepared for something even more alien than we are.
The Tree of Knowledge
(Becoming Aware of Self)
Consider the mystery
Who are we
A spark in the dark
A broken branch
A tree
Or just
A dark mark
Eternally aglee
A scree
Afraid are we
Are we really we
Or are we me
In reality
We are three
You
Me
And we
Actually
All are me
To me
You are free
And I am bound to be
Me
Since religious mythology has encroached onto scientific endeavor, it seems only fair that scientific conclusions venture into the domain of mythology. That is what I intend to do here but, unlike religion which proclaims their revelations to be more than mythological, I do not make such a claim. The conclusions herein, based on the scientifically proven fact of evolution, are enthusiastically embraced as no more (and no less) than pure mythology. Just as Plato used Socrates’ proof of human cognition to launch the mythology of a perfect world (Heaven) of which the world we inhabit is just a reflection, so I will attempt to launch the mythological consequences of evolution.
Let’s begin with the beginning according to Jewish, Christian, and Islamic writings -- Genesis (creation itself). How the cosmos began is not really addressed here so much as the origin and subsequent development of the human animal. The creation of the cosmos is pretty much determined by this otherwise pitifully insignificant event because, while Genesis suggests that only a few thousand years have elapsed, most of the scientific community has determined that several million (even several billion) years were required for it to have occurred, and scientists claim to have proven their case. The Evangelical community, on the other hand, has claimed it can scientifically prove that the science of most scientists is faulty and that scientists have proven nothing.
Thus begins my version of the mythological consequences of evolution. There is a story whose mythological basis would seem to precede the genesis story of Adam and Eve. The first human created, it says, was neither (or both) male and/or female. When this creature displeased the Creator, She/He/It divided this person into two separate but equal parts and placed each on opposite sides of the world. Since that separation, each has been desperately seeking its other half.
The romantic result from this mythological separation has been a quest for the perfect mate. The chance for this search to be successful is very small, but there is always (usually futile) hope.
Along these lines some scientists (I cannot emphasize enough that most scientists have rejected this idea as ridiculous and with no scientific justification at all, and those who made this suggestion now seem very, very embarrassed by it) have suggested that all our organs could be the result of an attempt by one organism to invade, and another organism to envelop. Rather than one organism devouring the other from the inside, or the other organism digesting the invading organism, a parasitic relationship developed which over time resulted in a symbiotic relationship, the invading organism finding a nurturing environment within the other organism and the other benefiting from the additional resources provided by the invading organism.
Having thus explained (mythologically of course) Eve, the next step would be the origin of Adam. In other words, how did male and female come to be? What is male and what is female? A puzzle even more intriguing than the creation (evolution) of man is the separation of humans and most plants and animals into male and female. How have what appear to be two completely opposite species been incorporated into one body? The mythological possibilities are overwhelming, but only one will be presented here -- my mythology of the consequences of evolution.
Though complex, early life forms were relatively simple in relation to plants and animals today. For example, there is a primordial amoeba and there is what has remained a life form so primordial many question whether it is really a life form at all -- the virus. Viruses invade a cell (amoeba-like organism) and use that cell’s resources to replace its DNA with that of the virus many times over. When the cell’s resources are depleted, the now many viruses burst forth to seek new prey. The cell (an amoeba-like organism) gains sustenance by absorbing nutrients (including any nearby living organisms). Suppose it is unable to digest or eject some of these organisms, including a viral infection. Suppose further that the virus is unable to completely destroy all the DNA of the cell (amoeba-like organism) leaving only part of its DNA attached to the remnants of the cell’s DNA. Thus the virus is unable to reproduce itself, partly because it cannot escape and partly because it is no longer its original self. Neither is the cell its original self.
A cell reproduces by dividing itself. This the original cell can do, but its progeny cannot. They are sterile mutants, some with a majority of predominantly viral genes and some with a majority of predominantly cellular (amoeba-like) genes. Being sterile they should have died out but the viral mutant, still with its hunter instincts, sought out the amoeba-like cell and attempted to invade it; and the amoeba-like cell, still with its appetite for surrounding nutrients, exuded chemicals to attract suitable prey to envelop. Both succeeded, the one releasing some of its preponderantly viral genes into the predominantly amoeba-like cell and the amoeba-like cell, having engulfed the viral cell, by incorporating enough of the viral cells into its DNA to reproduce.
This would be a greatly simplified version of what might (mythologically, of course) have happened. From the predominantly amoeba-like cell there is a primordial need to feed, just as there is from the predominantly viral cell a primordial need to seek out, invade, and ultimately destroy. The predominately amoeba-like cell, however, does not seek out prey so much as attract it and absorb it when invaded. Thus it sends out signals -- chemicals, vibrations, or some other method of attraction -- which makes the predominantly viral cell aware of its presence. Thus you have the situation of two life forms, each the natural prey of the other, but necessary for propagation (sometimes of one and sometimes of the other) based largely on chance.
Some will make much of human habits that seem to suggest this myth is actual fact, such as men talking to other men about women with contempt and women talking to other women about men with contempt. For men there is the superior tone in the word “sissy” meaning “like a girl” and the antagonistic tone in the word “witch” meaning “devious woman.” For women there is the superior tone in “child” meaning “easily manipulated” and the antagonistic tone in the word “Neanderthal” meaning “cannot be reasoned with.” Others might make a strong case for just such a difference being portrayed in literature as male-female conflict down through the ages.
For those who take this direction, I would point out that the male-female phenomenon is found throughout the animal kingdom and also the plant kingdom. The consequences are so diverse that it would be difficult to make a case supporting the mythology even if it were, in fact, actual fact. Using such arguments as the above to prove the validity of the mythological consequences of evolution is just as foolish as using cognition as proof for the existence of Heaven.
The mythological consequence of evolution is in the primordial interaction of male and female in one’s self -- a chemical warfare for control of our instinctive reaction to our environment. The masculine monster says hunt down, kill, and tear asunder everything you find until there is nothing left. The female monster says absorb and digest everything within reach and attract whatever is out of reach until it is close enough to engulf. Both strategies are ultimately suicidal, but both make remarkably successful killing machines and both experience an ultimate “gotcha” feeling of satisfaction at the moment life is extinguished from its prey.
I would add something else to this mythology. Let’s say there is a God and that this God, though He/She/It neither protects me nor gives me power over my enemies, does want the best for me. That best might be life beyond this life, but it could just as easily be the end of my life being the end of me. Let us also say that that final decision is not mine to make, nor am I entitled to earn a reprieve or any other consideration based on good behavior. Still, if God does care (as It/She/He does in this mythology of mine) what possible reason could She/He/It have to bring these two monsters together in this one body?
I would point out further mythological consequences. The female monster that would, much like the blob of science fiction, engulf and absorb the entire world has -- thanks to the male monster -- become maternal, caring for others, appreciative of beauty and order, creating them even. The male monster that would seek out, destroy and tear apart anything and everything has -- thanks to the female monster -- become courageous, protecting his friends and family, seeking out new frontiers to explore, and finding new ways to go beyond overwhelming barriers.
The strength of a mythology is in its point, which is solid enough to be commonly perceived but vague enough to fit every person’s personality and situation. Its weakness is the tendency of some to take it too literally and too seriously, thus nullifying any value it might have. In spite of this, I am going to risk offering my response to this mythology. Hopefully, that point is vague enough to be useful.
If we have survived, and perhaps become more deserving of survival, while this continuing struggle between our male nature and our female nature -- two totally alien species -- rages within us, could we be preparing ourselves for even more alien encounters? I admit we do not seem to be doing well at the moment, as we systematically exterminate other species and even large portions of our own species, but at least we seem to have the potential, through our primeval internal struggle, to be prepared for something even more alien than we are.
The Tree of Knowledge
(Becoming Aware of Self)
Consider the mystery
Who are we
A spark in the dark
A broken branch
A tree
Or just
A dark mark
Eternally aglee
A scree
Afraid are we
Are we really we
Or are we me
In reality
We are three
You
Me
And we
Actually
All are me
To me
You are free
And I am bound to be
Me
Forbidden Fruit
When I am asked if I believe in God, I feel defensive. I feel as if I have been cornered and there is no escape. I feel that if I answer no I am not being truthful, and if I answer yes the person to whom I am answering will assume something about me that is not true. It is a quandary with which I have struggled most of my life. I have resolved it by answering no and accepting the stigma of being an atheist which technically I probably am, though in fact I am not.
I’ll try to explain. I have a relationship with God even though I see no evidence that there is a God. This relationship is partly one I have come to recognize and partly a decision I have made. There is deep within me a realization that I am not alone. There is me and there is not me. This not me is an all-encompassing not me, but not in a kind of inside-outside relationship. It is more an ego-alter-ego relationship extended to what is outside of me and way beyond. In answering the resulting question of where did this extended alter-ego come from, I am forced to make a decision. Is it real or is it imagined?
Since there is no sensory evidence that there is an actual not-me extended alter-ego, I must logically assume this relationship is imaginary. But I can also assume it is not imaginary if I am willing to be illogical (irrational, intuitive), since relationships are not real in any rational sense. They just are. They are imaginary. Rationally, they do not exist. Irrationally (emotionally), they are at least as real as any sensory object. If I try to justify an emotion (a relationship), it is tainted by the very questioning of it. That is what belief does to God. It subjects Him to suspicion.
To believe is to subject that in which you believe to doubt. By its very definition, belief is an expression of doubt. You can believe things about God, but to express belief in God is to deny the relationship which is a kind of knowing God. Be warned that this is a language thing. To claim to know God is beyond belief. It simply is not possible by the very definition of God. My definition of God is “that which cannot be controlled.” Your definition may be quite different, but surely it would place God beyond our limited knowledge.
Thus we introduce betrayal, portrayed quite well I think in the person of Judas. I see Judas a little differently from most. I see him as Jesus’ most dedicated follower. He was so dedicated, in fact, that his fervor betrayed the very object of his devotion. He believed so deeply that Jesus was the messiah, that he sought to put Jesus in a position that would force him to reveal himself to the world as Judas knew him to be. Intending to fulfill prophecy and deeply dedicated to his master, he betrayed him. The result, of course, is that, though what cannot be controlled now (gods) may be controlled in the future, “That Which Cannot Be Controlled,” by Its very nature, cannot be controlled.
By demanding others believe (to express doubt about) what should be a relationship is to introduce doubt about the relationship, thus forcing an irrational (intuitive) apprehension into the rational (dehumanized) realm. A need to be justified forces us to seek, even to demand, verification. We do this by turning to the rational world, the world of reason, the world of sensory experience, and we turn it into our need to prove what we only believe to be true. It can’t be done.
Before we believed, we tried to express our relationship with what we could not control through the use of mythology, assuming others might share these insights, these otherwise inexpressive intuitions. We portrayed feelings through stories, stories that were not necessarily true but had truth in them. In the rational (dehumanized) world, those stories were meaningless unless understood literally. As a consequence of demanding that mythology be literally true, the relationship was lost; a betrayal bred by belief. We have as a result lost the mythology along with the relationship it was meant to inspire.
Having moved from a relationship to a belief, we tend to confuse what we believe about God (which we would naturally feel compelled to deny if such beliefs could not be justified) with our previous relationship with God. The beliefs about God become inviolate, above a need for justification and, being beyond question, often quite bizarre.
Another consequence of our need to validate our feelings through belief and the impossibility of accomplishing that purpose is the attempt to justify our beliefs through sheer numbers. There is a tendency to believe that the more people who share our belief the more likely it is that our belief is justified. And so, when we cannot thoughtfully and rationally justify what we believe, we make things up. Whereas in the past philosophers and theologians thought deeply about such questions and seriously sought to answer difficult questions, most of us find it easier and more productive to invent an answer, assuming that it will be accepted on faith. Once this hurdle is passed, when others actually do accept our fictional rationale, that fiction becomes fact, and then feelings (emotions, intuitions), rather than being expressed, are subjected to manipulation.
An unfortunate consequence of the need to validate our belief through quantity rather than quality is coercion. This coercion can take the form of physical threat, social threat, financial threat, emotional threat (the withdrawal of affection and companionship) or the threat of Hell and damnation. An offshoot of coercion is the consequence of any deviation from the established norms: death, torture, excommunication, shunning.
If we are to have an honest relationship with God, it would seem to me that we need to realize that this relationship is not a belief. A relationship is not subject to doubt. It simply is or is not; I have a relationship or I do not have a relationship. It also seems important to separate what we believe about God as a result of our relationship (or lack of relationship) with Him from the relationship or lack of relationship itself. We can discuss our relationship with God or the lack of such a relationship, but we should not be expected to prove it or justify it. What we believe about God, on the other hand, we should be expected to justify.
I would also like to put in a good word for mythology. When properly used, mythology is a powerful communication tool and should be encouraged. It should, however, be recognized as an art form utilized to expose some of our deepest insights to those sensitive to these insights, not as a substitute for reason or sensory input. Not everyone should be expected to understand the implications of a mythological adventure in the same way. By discussing these differences we have the opportunity to become more aware of who and what we are, our relationships with one another, and our subjective evaluation of what surrounds us.
I’ll try to explain. I have a relationship with God even though I see no evidence that there is a God. This relationship is partly one I have come to recognize and partly a decision I have made. There is deep within me a realization that I am not alone. There is me and there is not me. This not me is an all-encompassing not me, but not in a kind of inside-outside relationship. It is more an ego-alter-ego relationship extended to what is outside of me and way beyond. In answering the resulting question of where did this extended alter-ego come from, I am forced to make a decision. Is it real or is it imagined?
Since there is no sensory evidence that there is an actual not-me extended alter-ego, I must logically assume this relationship is imaginary. But I can also assume it is not imaginary if I am willing to be illogical (irrational, intuitive), since relationships are not real in any rational sense. They just are. They are imaginary. Rationally, they do not exist. Irrationally (emotionally), they are at least as real as any sensory object. If I try to justify an emotion (a relationship), it is tainted by the very questioning of it. That is what belief does to God. It subjects Him to suspicion.
To believe is to subject that in which you believe to doubt. By its very definition, belief is an expression of doubt. You can believe things about God, but to express belief in God is to deny the relationship which is a kind of knowing God. Be warned that this is a language thing. To claim to know God is beyond belief. It simply is not possible by the very definition of God. My definition of God is “that which cannot be controlled.” Your definition may be quite different, but surely it would place God beyond our limited knowledge.
Thus we introduce betrayal, portrayed quite well I think in the person of Judas. I see Judas a little differently from most. I see him as Jesus’ most dedicated follower. He was so dedicated, in fact, that his fervor betrayed the very object of his devotion. He believed so deeply that Jesus was the messiah, that he sought to put Jesus in a position that would force him to reveal himself to the world as Judas knew him to be. Intending to fulfill prophecy and deeply dedicated to his master, he betrayed him. The result, of course, is that, though what cannot be controlled now (gods) may be controlled in the future, “That Which Cannot Be Controlled,” by Its very nature, cannot be controlled.
By demanding others believe (to express doubt about) what should be a relationship is to introduce doubt about the relationship, thus forcing an irrational (intuitive) apprehension into the rational (dehumanized) realm. A need to be justified forces us to seek, even to demand, verification. We do this by turning to the rational world, the world of reason, the world of sensory experience, and we turn it into our need to prove what we only believe to be true. It can’t be done.
Before we believed, we tried to express our relationship with what we could not control through the use of mythology, assuming others might share these insights, these otherwise inexpressive intuitions. We portrayed feelings through stories, stories that were not necessarily true but had truth in them. In the rational (dehumanized) world, those stories were meaningless unless understood literally. As a consequence of demanding that mythology be literally true, the relationship was lost; a betrayal bred by belief. We have as a result lost the mythology along with the relationship it was meant to inspire.
Having moved from a relationship to a belief, we tend to confuse what we believe about God (which we would naturally feel compelled to deny if such beliefs could not be justified) with our previous relationship with God. The beliefs about God become inviolate, above a need for justification and, being beyond question, often quite bizarre.
Another consequence of our need to validate our feelings through belief and the impossibility of accomplishing that purpose is the attempt to justify our beliefs through sheer numbers. There is a tendency to believe that the more people who share our belief the more likely it is that our belief is justified. And so, when we cannot thoughtfully and rationally justify what we believe, we make things up. Whereas in the past philosophers and theologians thought deeply about such questions and seriously sought to answer difficult questions, most of us find it easier and more productive to invent an answer, assuming that it will be accepted on faith. Once this hurdle is passed, when others actually do accept our fictional rationale, that fiction becomes fact, and then feelings (emotions, intuitions), rather than being expressed, are subjected to manipulation.
An unfortunate consequence of the need to validate our belief through quantity rather than quality is coercion. This coercion can take the form of physical threat, social threat, financial threat, emotional threat (the withdrawal of affection and companionship) or the threat of Hell and damnation. An offshoot of coercion is the consequence of any deviation from the established norms: death, torture, excommunication, shunning.
If we are to have an honest relationship with God, it would seem to me that we need to realize that this relationship is not a belief. A relationship is not subject to doubt. It simply is or is not; I have a relationship or I do not have a relationship. It also seems important to separate what we believe about God as a result of our relationship (or lack of relationship) with Him from the relationship or lack of relationship itself. We can discuss our relationship with God or the lack of such a relationship, but we should not be expected to prove it or justify it. What we believe about God, on the other hand, we should be expected to justify.
I would also like to put in a good word for mythology. When properly used, mythology is a powerful communication tool and should be encouraged. It should, however, be recognized as an art form utilized to expose some of our deepest insights to those sensitive to these insights, not as a substitute for reason or sensory input. Not everyone should be expected to understand the implications of a mythological adventure in the same way. By discussing these differences we have the opportunity to become more aware of who and what we are, our relationships with one another, and our subjective evaluation of what surrounds us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)