We actually had a similar issue here on the board in real life, in that SDMB member Freyr considered himself to have had theophanies from both YHWH and the Vana Freyr (see Norse mythology; hence his username).
Assertions regarding God deserve to be dealt with on their own terms, without bringing allegations that are not relevant into the argument. For example, Tris and I claim to have encountered God and to have experienced His love and reciprocate. Thiss does not necessarily mean that we subscribed to a Universal Flood based on the Book of Genesis, or to the (supposedly) logical inferences that Aquinas drew from the proposition God. Nor does the fact that others have not had similar encounters necessary imply that ours are delusional. One does not find echidnas beneath bushes in the United States or in Europe – it does not therefore follow that Australians must be lying about having seen them. Some people perceive indigo as a distinct color; I do not. I do not therefore believe them to be lying or misled about their experiences in doing so. And, as Gaudere pointed out at one time, some “real” things are not subject to objective analysis. No one is able to observe the love borne between a couple (at most we may note expressions of it), yet few would doubt that there is truly an emotion shared by them. I have never met Mrs. Bricker and probably never will, but I have not the slightest doubt that Bricker is referring to a real person in mentioning her from time to time as it becomes appropriate to do so.
It’s his job, and mine, to “witness” for God in the appropriate way. For both of us, however, that usually means acting like a Christian ought to, rather than being the sort of drive-by condemner that hasmade “witnessing” a bad word around here. Sometimes, “you say it best when you say nothing at all.”
The things I mentioned that were admonitions to do something are not dependent upon the reality of God. They are, in my unqualified opinion the things that God wants you to do, but that is not why you might consider doing them.
Love each soul you encounter in the world as if that were The Lord God of the Universe himself.
Couldn’t hurt.
God will figure out the part where you are having trouble with faith, when the time comes.
And if I am absolutely wrong, and deluded, and psychotic, still, it would be a good idea, for you.
Love and let yourself be loved.
Oh, and I do care if people have faith in God. I just don’t think I can give it to them. I care for them. And will care for them, even if they reject and despise God, or me.
This would seem to be an improved variant on Pascal’s wager that requires no feigned belief, but rather allows for honest skepticism while promoting moral and loving deeds and (for us terribly empirical and pragmatic types), is supported by game theory.
That’s very cool Tris. Ever thought of founding a church/sect/denomination?
(Seriously: I mean it. Very cool. And I have a lot of respect for you and Polycarp and other thoughtful believers).
How about if I just try to love them as themselves? I find it easier to love human beings than gods. If I thought of everybody as God, I’d just want to kick their asses.
This is hilarious when you think of a person doing it to everyone they meet. One after the other!
I wasn’t going to respond to the original suggestion to love everyone as if they God, but now I feel I must. Personally, I can’t love the idea of God - too much negative baggage associated with the Christain one and variants, and that’s the only one I think of when I hear the title ‘god’ used as a proper name. And worse yet, I cannot prevent myself from forming opinions, possibly negative opinions of people as I interact with them, which impedes my ability to love them. And worse yet, I can’t bring myself to default to the ‘loving’ position; my love must be earned.
I thought the idea you captured there was pretty amazing and I rather wished it was a position that more believers might take.
(Even if like Diogenes the Cynic I’d want to love them as people not God, and like begbert2 I very much doubt my ability to be loving by default – I can probably manage an iterated prisoner’s dilemma approach of initial trust and co-operation).
I didn’t mean to upset or offend you, and I apologize unreservedly if that is what I’ve done.
Only if He cares whether or not people pay any attention to Him – which is not something necessarily implicit in the concept of God. (Nor is it necessarily implicit that He cares whether people are happy or not, BTW.)
I trust you don’t love these characters in the same way you love someone or something who can love you back. I also trust that you understand the characters who you love aren’t even the ones the authors created, but rather your transformation of them. If religion were like the Baker Street Irregulars, I’d be fine with it - so long as the adherents are able to go out of character every so often and admit Holmes didn’t really exist.
What’s the problem with ‘loving’ fictitious characters? That is the way traditional religions taught their children to admire the Hero and then to get them to understand that the Hero is really just part of them. The difference is that when the ancients talked about ‘inner Christ’ they meant the ‘divinity’ that the Bible says is part of all of us but we don’t know; when ‘Christians’ talk about it, they mean some kind of Voodoo ‘possession’ by an external force.
I love some non-fictional characters who do not love me back, and to be honest I am not sure anyone is who they really are, who I think they are, or who they think they are. It isn’t important. Giving love is. Having it returned is also good, but it isn’t essential.
The famous Hindu mystic, Ramakrishna, advocated a philosophy very similar to Triskadecamus’ – that God was in all things – but still advised staying away from “evil-minded” people. He said, “God is even in the tiger; but you cannot embrace the tiger on that account.”
He also told a parable about a Guru who teaches his disciples to see God in all living things, and to bow before them and praise them. One newbie disciple is very moved by this. One day he’s out in the street and he sees a mad elephant charging down the street right at him. He reasons that he is God and the elephant is God, so nothing bad can happen. The mahout riding on the elephant is screaming at the disciple to get out of the way, that the elephant has gone mad and he can’t control it. The disciple ignores the mahout and stays where he is, bowing to the elephant. The elephant picks the disciple up with its trunk and tosses him aside. The disciple is carried back to his ashram, injured and dazed. When he sees his guru he says, “I thought you said God was in all things. Was God not in the elephant?”
The guru says, “yes, God was in the elephant, but God was also riding on the elephant’s back telling you to get the hell out of the way. Why did you ignore the word of God?”
Follow the logic of this debate and much of how (or IF) God exposes Himself to His children (us) and His expectations.
There is more here than mere contradictory Christian Theology. This debate (perhaps inadvertently) deals with the nature of God (and the existence thereof).
Clearly I am a Christian, but I understand the dilemma of faith and skepticism. I think this debate adds thoughtful material to the OP question.
The big difference between Luther and Erasmus (seems to me) is that Luther believed that the humans that wrote the scriptures knew for a fact that God inspired them to write and call it God’s word. Erasmus took a different view.
One could just as well believe that God dictated an entire book to Muhammad,and be just as right..
If God would have wanted a book written I believe he would have had Jesus write a book, and grant everyone who read it the true understanding of what He wanted. I heard that Christianity is the most divided of all religions mainly because they translate the Bible to fit their own beliefs.
There are even many differences as to the meaning of the word God.
More importantly, Luther believed the meaning of the Bible was plain and obvious, and everyone who actually read it would interpret it the same way. I doubt Erasmus would have been so naive.
