What Do You Think God's Personality Is Like?

Great Debates
101

:::::sigh:::::

This is going to be really, really long. Please bear with me if it rambles.

As a child, I was raised pretty un-religiously, the son of a non-practicing Jewish father and a non-practicing Protestant mother. (One of the more generic Protestant sects, I don’t know which.) We had a couple of Bibles in the house, and when we were in the States we went to church on major holidays, but that was it. Like most American children, I had some general concept that “God” existed, somewhere “up there,” but that was about it.

When I was . . . let’s see, sophomore year in high school, so I was 14 or 15, a friend invited me to attend church with him. (An aside: this friend, Matt Rich, a wonderful person, died 5 years ago, ironically the victim of a lightning strike.) He was an attendee of St. James Episcopal Church in Painesville, OH. As Matt was my best friend, I took him up on the offer. Matt was very involved in church activities, attending youth conferences, senior person in the acolyte program, member of the choir, etc.

I really took to it, as much for the social benefits as anything else, but I had an inkling that there was some truth behind it. I also became very active, and attended a youth conference with Matt. The Episcopal youth movement, at least in the Ohio diocese, tends towards the charismatic-evangelical, as I bet Poly can attest. I really, really was excited by what I saw and felt. At my second conference, I answered an altar call and gave my life to Christ.

Following that, I really changed my lifestyle. I read the Bible more and more, tried to share God with my family and friends, attended training to become a Group Leader for youth events, and things like that. Eventually, though, I started pledging more of my time to other things in my life, and once I went off to college, I stopped attending.

My sophomore year in college, a number of crises hit at once. I was having serious problems at home, caught in a battle between my mother and my sister. I was blindsided by the breakup of a three-year relationship with a girl I loved deeply. I began skipping classes, drinking, partying, moping, and eventually flunked out. (I had graduated fifth in my high school class with a 3.8 GPA, and left college with a 1.7 cumulative, 0.6 for my last quarter.)

Just before I flunked out, I had met Leigh-Anne. We had begun dating, and talking and corresponding constantly. She was, and had been for about 7 years, a born-again Christian, and took every opportunity to share Christ with me. She loved me for me, but wanted me to be saved. And, seeing what Christ had wrought in her life, and the lives of those around her, I wanted to be saved. I was at absolute rock-bottom in my life. I truly believed that by rededicating my life to Jesus, he could make changes in my life.

So, one night, in tears, I went with her to her pastor’s house, and we prayed, for hours, the three of us, with other household members and friend in attendance and either praying with us or laying on hands.

And, let me tell you, I was on fire for the Lord, as much as Adam/Zion, or FriendofGod, or anyone else who has ever posted here. Daily and nightly praying, talking to God, doing work for God and the church, everything.

But there was something . . . wrong. Missing. Many times, I prayed for some of the Gifts of the Spirit to be made manifest in me, to bring me closer to God, and to make me a better witness and example of his work. And they never came. For a long time, I was able to say, “God simply has not seen fit to bless me with these outward gifts yet, and will in his own time.” Then, after a while, I prayed, “I know that envy and jealousy are sinful, Lord, but I see everyone else around me receiving the gifts of tongues, of interpretation, of healing–why have I received no gifts? What is wrong with me? What have I done to let you down?”

I kept attending, kept praying, kept witnessing, kept fellowshipping, and kept doubting–myself. My worth. My worthiness. I tried to teach myself Greek to read the NT in its original language (kudos to you, Lib–I do not pick up languages). I did everything I could to make myself worthy to receive God’s blessings and become a better servant.

Then, one day, I said to myself, “Wait–maybe there isn’t something wrong with me. Maybe, just maybe, there’s less here than meets the eye.” I asked myself, “Why do I believe this? On what basis? Why this, and not Judaism? Or Buddhism? Or Zeus-ism?” I started reading about the historical foundations of belief, about superstition, about the supernatural. About science, and skepticism, and experimentation and proof. About the history of the Bible and the events therein. About altered states of conciousness, and of the ability of schizophrenics and brain-damaged people to manifest the exact same glossolalia I had seen at church.

And, after all my reading, and thinking, and self-examination, the only conclusion that I could come to that jibed with everything I had absorbed, was that God was a creation of the human brain, and that what I had seen in church over the years had rational, non-supernatural explanations. I concluded that I had absolutely no basis for believing Christianity in particular over any other belief system, nor for believing that a god existed at all.

And that’s the conclusion I came to, and in the several (8 or so) years since, I have seen nothing that would change my mind. I’m not going to pretend I know for certain, any more than, ultimately, anyone else here knows. But on the basis of my experience, I am as certain as any of you that my conclusion is the correct one.

My wife’s journey, by the way, has been different, and I won’t presume to relate it to you. Suffice to say that she no longer believes Christianity to be true, nor, do I think, does she believe in the Judeo-Christian god. I don’t know for certain if she believes in an eternal soul or not. I don’t.

102

Phil

Forgive me, especially after that Herculean post! :slight_smile: But that story you had related before (I think in the Atheist Relgion thread). Nevertheless, it will benefit people new since that time.

But, what I’m interested in is how your perception — your world-view, your metaphysic, your interpretation of reality — changed in each case. For example, what difference, if any, does each world-view make in how you view the personal problems you had in college?

(Note: I know I’m treading on thin ice now. Please grant me lattitude as I query you in love.)

At this point, it seems that what was missing was a rebirth. The gift of tongues and the gift of faith are worthless without the gift of Love.

103

I’ll answer as best I can, Lib. I’m not terribly sophisticated, as I’ve said before, in matters of logic and philosophy; I tend to not understand the terminology.

When I was undergoing those experiences in college, my perception was, “Why are all these terrible things happening to me? Why is my life being ruined?” I saw myself as the victim of circumstances beyond control.

When I was a Christian, my perception was, “God was leading me to him by allowing me to suffer, and I underwent each of those experiences for a reason.” I felt that God was creating in me, as many Christians refer to it, conviction-- an awareness of my sins, a desire to repent, and a desire to receive his love.

My current thinking is, “Boy, I sure was an immature, irresponsible jerk in college, and I paid for it in spades.” I was in a relationship whose consequences I was ill-equipped to handle, I was not ready to go to college, and I screwed up every opportunity I had to make things right.

My world-view is that what exists, exists (which you will probably agree with, A being A and all that), but that the Universe and the objects in it are all that exists. I fall dangerously close to hyperskepticism (or dogmatic skepticism, if you prefer) many times, but only because I do not suffer fools gladly, and the world is loaded with them. I believe learning and knowledge are their own ends. I believe that when we die, we’re gone forever (which is why I sometimes bristle when you state that, from your reference frame, physical death is relatively inconsequential. Where I sit, death is it.).

104

Phil

When anybody mentions a world-view with which you are unfamiliar, simply ask them these three things: [1] What is its source of reality (that’s the metaphysic) [2] What is its source of knowledge (that’s the epistemology) and [3] What is its source of morality (that’s the ethic).

For example, if you heard “libertarianism” but were unfamiliar with it, you would get something like this:

Metaphysic: Government

Epistemology: Free discourse

Ethic: Voluntary consent (or noncoercion)

That would give you a good idea what it’s all about.

Thanks, Phil. That’s exactly what I feared. Looks like you got Glitched.

105

“All we are is dust in the wind.” - Kansas

(Which I’ve always felt would be good background music for an Ash Wednesday service.)

Thank you very much, Phil. I understand far better where you are coming from now. And I’m very grateful you shared this.

Obviously, I disagree with you on some cardinal points, but it would be the height of uncharity at this point to argue them with you. And, Lib., as my beloved brother, may I suggest that the Love that invests your life and mine is not the aspect of the incomprhensible-in-His-totality God we both know and love that needs to be brought forth right here?

FYI, Phil, Barb and I joined the Episcopal Church as adults, both having been members of the Dryasdust United Methodist Church, so to speak. But we both went to Cursillo and got involved in the Episcopal Renewal Movement, and I’m certain that what you described is Happening, Youth Alive, or a related program along the same lines.

Without sidetracking this account, I’d note that the fact that schizophrenia can produce glossolalia no more rules out the possibility of a true spiritual “gift of tongues” than does the fact that a paranoid psychotic sees an organized, structured world rule out the idea that the world could be deterministic and materialist with multilayered order and structure. Both give grounds for suspicion but are not sufficient for disproof.

106

"Glitched"

As depressed as I get recounting those experiences, that one made me laugh! Thanks, Lib.

107

It’s okay, Poly. Phil knows that I love him.

He is a man of good character and great intellect who treats animals with kindness and love. He will be able to figure out that the world-view change I am talking about is analogous to the one he experienced when he became a libertarian.

Suddenly, he saw everything in new ways. There was no struggle to understand this or that. No begging or pleading for special insights. Everything simply made sense from his new reference frame. Or rebirth, if you will.

108

My thought exactly, Lib.

Hmmm… “Revelation is the user’s manual for Universe 2.0, a new release in which Glitches in version 1.0 are repaired.”? :slight_smile:

To clarify for Phil (whom I believe was on his sabbatical when the discussion Lib. and I are alluding to took place) and other posters who have joined the board since, Gaudere, Lib., myself and a now-inactive member named Glitch, among others, got into a detailed discussion in which Glitch gave an account of a very similar faith crisis in which God declined to give any evidence of His presence to him at a point when he was desperate for such evidence. Much more detail than this, of course, but that’s the 50-words-or-less summary.

109

Satan:

Do you think you can say “God isn’t evil”? How about “God isn’t deceptive”? Do these limit God?

Lib:

OK, if the Spirit harms herself (why is the Spirit female? You just got tired of all those masculine pronouns? :slight_smile: ) and becomes dragged through the mud and debased, is the Spirit then evil?

110

You didn’t ask me, Gaudere, but that hasn’t stopped me before; why should it this time? :slight_smile:

First, as to the gender of the Spirit: God, strictly speaking, has no gender, although of course Jesus as Second Person of the Trinity adopted male sexuality while on Earth. But it would be equally appropriate to see the First Person as Mother (and even Jesus used the metaphor of a mother hen with reference to God’s relationship to Jerusalem). In both Hebrew and Greek (and I would presume Aramaic too, since it is closely related to Hebrew), the word we translate as Spirit is feminine in gender. Only in Latin (and the Romance languages) does it become masculine. A rabbi might well say, in Hebrew, “The first reference to God’s spirit is when she is pictured hovering over the chaos at the beginning of Genesis…” Now, when we reflect that Mary found herself “with child by the Spirit” we do have a slight problem with this concept. But fertility spirits are a dime a dozen in pagan theologies; God’s spirit is more than welcome to fructify as a female if one so desires to interpret it that way.

Now, to the crux of what you asked. As a necessary but brief digression, may I point out that no softvark lives on an exclusive diet of termites? What’s a softvark? Anything that’s not an aardvark, of course. This horrible pun serves to demonstrate that classification systems often use the exclusionary practice rather than the inclusionary. The only thing invertebrates have in common that is not shared with plants and protists is that they are not vertebrates. One cannot generate cold; one can only generate heat. (Before somebody brings up refrigerators and air conditioners, let me quickly note that they work by reducing the heat level in a local area by shipping that heat, along with their own waste heat, somewhere else.) The statements that “the Big Bang contained everything in the Universe at one point” and “the Big Bang contained no cold” are not mutually contradictory (incompossible), since the Big Bang is conceived of as being at the highest possible temperature, and therefore the total absence of “cold” as the antithesis of heat.

By this analysis, we can see that often what appears to be a specific term is simply a shorthand for “that which is not (or is relatively not) [other term which is the antithesis of the term in question, and which does have positive existence].”

Therefore, the idea that God is illimitable and the ultimate in all aspects of description does not imply “God is the ultimate in evil” or “God is the ultimate in deviousness” if “evil” is understood to mean the relative absence of goodness and “deviousness” the relative absence of forthrightness. For God to be perfectly good and contain no evil, on this understanding, would simply mean that he is so full of goodness that there is no room for its absence, just as the Big Bang, at the highest possible temperature, contained no coldness – because coldness is nothing but the absence of heat, and evil the absence of good.

I realize that this is bifurcating lagomorphs*, but I feel that it is the rational answer, given the idea of an omni-whatever God, to the conundrum you raise of how his, e.g., omniglurftiness can encompass antiglurftiness. Is this answer acceptable?

  • “splitting hares,” of course
111

**

God speaks to people differently, Gaudere.

Maybe I am the one who is limited - by what is revealed to me, by my own ability to comprehend, or a combination of the above.

Also, please let me state that my actual views of God are between that of an uninvolved creator the deist would speak of and the caring (and “loving”) God of the monotheistic religions, closer to that of the deist to be honest.

Ultimately, Gaudere, my outlook is changing and molding every day, and I feel it is making me a better person.

All of that said, I refuse to limit God since I cannot limit something I don’t fully and will probably never understand. If that leaves the door open to Him being a complete bastard, so be it.

Now, as for being deceptive: I see it more as Him speaking in languages that everyone hears a bit differently, and others don’t hear at all. You can call it deception, but again, I think it has to do with our limitations and not His.

Ultimately, the minute I say God is or isn’t something, it makes me no better than the likes of FreidnofGod - who thinks He knows everything about God that is to be known because of one book - or, the likes of our creationist friends who babble on on science without knowing a thing about it.

After much thought, this is how I think I can stay consistant with my statements and beliefs…

Yer pal,
Satan

[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, three weeks, three days, 15 hours, 10 minutes and 19 seconds.
4625 cigarettes not smoked, saving $578.16.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 2 days, 1 hour, 25 minutes.[/sub]

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endoresement, honey!*[/sub]

112

Oh, yes. Quite.

The infinite set loses a unit of cardinality.

I merely intended to personalize my response.

113

I, from my earthly context, feel free to disagree.

As to the good:evil::heat:cold argument, haven’t we done that before? :wink:
Assigning attributes as positive or negative based upon your subjective frame of reference and then assigning all positive attributes to God is still applying limits to the concept of God. It simply hides the process behind an additional layer of construction.

114

We sure have, Spiritus, but old saws will still cut at least as well as Occam’s Razor if they’re kept sharp. I find it a very useful metaphor because (1) not a one of us is prepared to say we know precisely what “good” and “evil” entail in an every-circumstance objective sense – I and those who agree with me on Jesus’s Summary of the Law would probably come the closest, and we would lose each other when it came to identifying how specifically to show that love; and (2) through knowledge of physics as well as everyday life, everyone has at least a slight awareness of the heat:cold dichotomy, and can extrapolate to see the view I espouse of good:evil by analogy. Like any analogy, it is not perfect. But it’s a darn good shot.

115

And, to back up just a bit:

I have tried to wrap my mind about this, but I have not managed to model it in any way which lends sense. The difference between ordinal and cardinal sets is the attribute of sequence. So, I gather you are attempting to illustrate that Spiritual time lacks sequence. However, I fail to see how such a model allows for action or decision to be non-contradictory. Both action and decision depend upon causality, which requires sequence.

What confuses me, then, is the juxtapostion of the following ideas:

  1. Spirit is our true self
  2. Our true self is capable of moving closer to or further away from “God”
  3. Spirit is unchanging
  4. Spirit establishes our decisions

If Spirit is unchanging, then the idea of life as a Spiritual journey/quest/awakening is a cruel hoax.
If some part of us that is not Spirit is supposed to undertake the journey/quest/awakening, then it seems that the non-Spirit element is the true/primary/important aspect.
If Spirit is unchanging, and Spirit establishes our decisions then free will is an illusion. All of our decisions were established in the instant we were inspired.

116

Well, I have recently (in fact, moments ago) been informed by someone called “gEEk” that cosmology has abandoned the notion of ordinality along with causality as an attribute of the natural metaphysic. Therefore, our argument (and especially yours) might be moot. Action, if gEEk is correct, would not depend upon causality even in the Big Bang shrapnel.

Source: Where’s the evidence against evolution?

But, you can’t say “were”. There is no were. Were is the illusion.

117

This only makes the case for free will even more bleak, you realize.

As to the abandonment of causality, I will need to review the thread in question (it is not one I have been reading), but I should not that causality is important only for action (implying subject/intent) not for motion. Absence of causality in a blind explosion of the Universe carries with it no particular consequences to contexts in which causality holds. Absence of causality in a context in which a conscious presence is required to act is a different story.

118

Lib:

Ok, so the Spirit is no longer God then. Does this mean God is not actually in all people, there are Spirits in all of us, but the Spirit may or may not be God?

Satan:

Yet it is certainly possible for Him to be deceptive, right? So do you simply refuse to state anything abouts God’s attributes except that He is infinite and beyond our comprehension? Do you not say then that God is good, or that God loves you?

119

There is something vaguely surreal about debating the characteristics of “spirit” with a poster named Spiritus Mundi. In some ways it is reminiscent of when David B. first advanced his claim to godhood and we analyzed the psychological problems faced by an atheist god (who would, of course, not believe in himself, among other things). It could, I suppose, be worse: imagine debating the reality of the devil with Satan! :smiley: (<-Surgoshan, whose soul he has title to)

Here would be my take, which is from an entirely distinct reference frame than you two are undertaking: Spirit is eternal; that is, it fills time as a single plenum, not moving in it but simultaneously at all times, as a particle moving at infinite speed in any closed space will be everywhere at once. (In fact, I venture to hypothesize that there is more than an analogy there.)

However, this all-times-are-one-to-it Spirit interacts with mortals confined in space and time, so that its interactions, not the spirit itself, are changing, at least from the perspective of the mortals.

And Spiritus? Regarding my analogy, I do not find “good” and “evil” subjective concepts. Though their application may be subjective, they are absolutes, or at least “good” is – “evil” being absolute only in as it is “good”'s absence. If you choose to reject my assertion, that is quite acceptable for the purposes of debate, but it would then be incumbent on you to arrive at an alternative definition and see how that stands up under debate. No offense, but there’s no rule that says that the theists have to justify their terminology and the other side can simply shoot the justifications down without proposing alternatives.

120

**

I imagine it is possible for Him to be anything, which is clearly what I said.

**

I wouldn’t say he is infinite beyond “our” comprehension. I say he was infinite beyond my comprehension. Though I doubt I’ll meet the person who gets everything about God.

The accurate answer is semantics, admittedly: That all depends on your definition of “good” on the first one, “love” for the second, and then you also have to define “bad” and “hate” too while you’re at it.

The non-semantic (Or, as Polycarp might notice, anti-semantic!) response is, I don’t know.

Yer pal,
Satan

[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, three weeks, three days, 18 hours, 3 minutes and 39 seconds.
4630 cigarettes not smoked, saving $578.76.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 2 days, 1 hour, 50 minutes.[/sub]

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endoresement, honey!*[/sub]