My personal philosophy, and feel free to disagree here, is this:
If God is an entity with a personality, and we all interact with that personality on various levels of intimacy, then surely our experience and understanding of God is an individual thing? For example: if you only know your Boss in a workplace situation and he runs his business with a tight management structure; you may consider him to be stern and petty. His wife however, experiences him at home. If, when he gets home, he is more accommodating and mellow, then she will have a completely different view of him. Is one more right than the other? Or are these just aspects of the same person?
Similarly with God: as I have travelled further down this journey to get to know Him (assuming He is a Him of course), I have learned different things about Him. Indeed, my concept of God has changed many times as I’ve learned and experienced different things.
This developmental approach to God has permeated even conventional Christianity. How you perceive God as a child is very different to how you perceive God as an adult. How you perceive God as an armchair Christian will be very different to how you perceive God if you actually study the Bible (or the Koran, Dharma, Talmud etc...)
Now, of course, I am going to be crucified by some for the perceived: “all religions are a path to God” platitude. I must emphasise: I don’t believe that. Or maybe I do? I haven’t decided yet. My journey to get to know my friend God is not over. But what I have seen is that getting to know God is a process. Just like getting to know anybody else. (Even taking just the Bible as a source: it seems evident to me that God has several distinct personalities or moods in the years chronicled by the book. He is Loving Creator, Largely Ambivalent, The Destroyer of Nations, and the Saviour all in one tome. This would suggest to me that God is not as consistent as we often imagine. Like any other ‘person’ interacting with other ‘people’ he seems to go through phases. (This is often explained as being part of “God’s Plan”, but if there is a plan, and there is nothing we can do to alter this plan, then why do we pray for things? Why don’t we simply skip ahead to: “God’s Plan” and simply wait out the results? But that is another question for another day.)
So in a nutshell: here’s where I’m coming from: I was born onto this planet as a human being. I was raised to believe that there is a God, who made me, looks after things and generally keeps things in line. At some point, I realised that:
If there is a God, I was doing a pretty terrible job of getting to know this entity that went to all the trouble of making me in the first place,
That ambivalence was at best rude, at worst, if many of the religions are to be believed, a one way ticket to a very uncomfortable, fiery end,
That perhaps this was all hokum and yet another way society has developed to keep us in line.
Now I would have loved to have been able to just accept this whole “God” thing as it came, God knows that would have been much easier, but it just wasn’t in me. If I was to get to know God, I had to be sure I wasn’t just talking at the ceiling. That’s where Theosophical Anthropology came about for me. I needed to understand:
Why do we as humans have such a yearning for God?
Where did this yearning come from?
What, if any, is the point of all of this?
And who is this “God” person anyway? (With great respect to Douglas Adams!)
Taking a Post-Modern approach: I would look for answers without seeking to find them, I would read anything that came my way, mindful of my preconception or judgement, and I would try to live what I was reading. My research still takes this form. Thanks to this approach, I have studied Ancient Greek and Latin, read so many books my toes hurt, and have, at one point or another studied: Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, the Verdic Scriptures, Krishna Consciousness/Bhakti Yoga, Shiva Worship, Satanism, polytheism, the mystery cults, early Christianity, medieval Christianity, modern Christianity, the occult, Sat Sang, Theosophy, various cosmologies (plenty more on that later), African mythology, and a host of other marginal beliefs. This blog is my way of starting to put it all together.
*************************************************************
Thanks for joining me on this journey! Read on by clicking here: http://talkingattheceiling.blogspot.com/2011/09/betting-on-buddha.html
*************************************************************
Zill - While it is your prerogative to look for God in all the places that you have, I believe it is my duty to clear up some of your misconceptions regarding the Christian, and for that matter the Jewish, God. This might make your journey less complicated, perhaps causing you to discard your quest for the God of the Bible altogether and in so doing giving you more time to search elsewhere. Why do I say this? Well, as commented on your previous blog – the Christian God cannot be separated from His revelation in the Bible. It doesn’t matter how one has “experienced” Him, or perceived Him or debated Him – He is who He reveals Himself to be in His Word. And this revelation, contrary to your assessment, is very consistent. In fact, throughout the history of the Jewish nation, prior to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, they were never in doubt as to His character. His actions never confused them, but rather consistently confirmed who He was. The followers of Jesus, the early church, and all those, through the centuries, who held dear the orthodox doctrines of the church and were custodians of His Word, were never in doubt over the consistency of His character as revealed in the Scriptures.
ReplyDeleteHow we “experience” God should never strip Him of the fact that He in fact is immutable. If anything, it characterizes our transient and mutable nature. It is also flawed logic to assume that He is the one that changes as our situations require it. The developmental approach that you speak of is in fact contrary to orthodox Christian belief. Orthodox Christianity (I use the word orthodox here in its true sense and also as a replacement for “fundamental” which seems to have acquired a bad reputation of late) has always held its position of “sola scriptura” – that the Bible is inerrant, infallible and sufficient as God’s revelation. The serious seeker will therefore limit his search for the Biblical God to God’s Word. His “understanding” of God will be shaped by God’s recorded revelation and his “experience” will therefore always be judged and weighed against this knowledge...and yes, consistent Biblical interpretation is possible and necessary.
Whilst I am acutely aware of my inability to convince you, or anybody else for that matter, of the truth of Scripture, I do assume it as my duty (as previously stated) to argue the case for a Biblical God that is quite contrary to your perceptions of Him. Unfortunately, by taking the approach that you do in your quest for God, you run the risk of creating God in your own image, moulded and shaped by your experiences, logic and morality. You may very well find someone like this to worship on your journey, but he/she should never be confused with the God of the Bible.
The following comment is too long to post so I will split it in two.
ReplyDeletePART 1:
Zill – this label of Theosophical Anthropologist has intrigued me since reading your first post in June. I coincidentally watched a documentary on the spiritual beliefs that underpinned Hitler’s Third Reich only a week or two before you going to air. I was interested to learn that he was a follower of one, Madame Blavatsky, who, as you surely know, was the first to coin the phrase Theosophy. Blavatsky, Henry Olcott, Guido von List and later Rudolf Steiner, greatly shaped Hitler’s philosophy of an Aryan or super-race. We all know how dangerous it is to judge a religion by its followers, so I took my research a bit further and came across the following website that put things into greater perspective for me - www.gnosiswisdom.org. This is how they promote their organization:
“The Gnostic Institute of Anthropology
Is an international voluntary organisation that seeks to advance public understanding and realisation of the human potential for spiritual and practical living by means of the study and dissemination of the teachings of Samael Aun Weor and of the universal Gnostic Theosophy of Helena P Blavatsky, Annie Besant, Rudolf Steiner, Arnold Krumm-Heller, Roso de Luna, Gurdjieff, Abad Tritemus, Pythagoras and many other great authors and precursors of universal Gnosticism. The Gnostic Institute also studies world religions and explores the common truths that bind all the great teachings of humanity. Gnostic teachings are universal, non-denominational and practical. The student of Gnosis learns to question, reflect and meditate on life's mysteries and problems so as to see and understand life and relationships in a new way. A Gnostic is an original thinker, a seeker after the eternal truth so as to solve universal questions and problems.”
It seems that you are not alone.
Then again Gnosticism has been around for millennia. In fact, one of the first great threats to the church was a result of Gnosticism:
The germ of Gnosticism in the Christian church made its appearance in the apostolic age, and is referred to by Paul in several of his epistles, notably in that to the Colossians and in the Pastoral Epistles. It is also referred to by the apostles Peter and Jude; references to it are also found in the book of Revelations, the First Epistle of John and the Gospel of John.
The questions with which Gnosticism concerned itself were those of the relation of the finite and the infinite, the origin of the world and of evil, the cause, meaning, purpose and destiny of all things, the reason of the difference in the capacities and in the lot in life of individual men, the method of salvation.
PART 2:
ReplyDeleteI have, in order to expand on the website above’s promo and with reference to our discussion, listed 4 points that I regard as the chief points in the characteristics of the Gnostic systems. It’s not difficult to see why the assimilation of Gnostic thought was fought by the Apostles and later the Church Fathers (In fact, the earliest Church Creeds were a direct result of this threat):
(1). A claim on the part of the initiated to a special knowledge of the truth, a tendency to regard knowledge as superior to faith, and as the special possession of the more enlightened. for ordinary Christians did not possess this secret and higher doctrine.
(2) The essential separation of matter and spirit, the former of these being essentially evil, and the source from which all evil has arisen. But another and contrary result also followed from the principles of the sinfulness of matter and of redemption as deliverance from the flesh, namely, that there was an easier way of relief, by treating the soul and the body as separate entities which have nothing in common. Let the soul go its way on the wings of spiritual thought, while the body may indulge its fleshly desires. For, so it was held, as body and soul are entirely distinct in their nature, the spiritual cannot be defiled by anything, however carnal and gross, that the body can do. This was the antinomian development of Gnosticism. Many traces of this are apparent in the Pastoral Epistles and in 2 Peter and Jude.
(3) The teaching, on the one hand, of asceticism as the means of attaining to spiritual communion with God, and, on the other hand, of an indifference which led directly to licentiousness.
(4) A syncretistic tendency which combined certain more or less misunderstood Christian doctrines, various elements from oriental and Jewish and other sources.
In Gnosticism knowledge was in itself the supreme end and purpose of life, the sum of highest good to which a man could attain, the crown of life. According to the Gnostics, God is thought of as the ultimate, nameless, unknowable Being, of whom they speak as the "Abyss." He is perfect, but the material world is alien to the Divine nature. I can’t help but to quote you here: “Taking a Post-Modern approach: I would look for answers without seeking to find them, I would read anything that came my way, mindful of my preconception or judgement, and I would try to live what I was reading. My research still takes this form. Thanks to this approach, I have studied Ancient Greek and Latin, read so many books my toes hurt, and have, at one point or another studied: Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, the Verdic Scriptures, Krishna Consciousness/Bhakti Yoga, Shiva Worship, Satanism, polytheism, the mystery cults, early Christianity, medieval Christianity, modern Christianity, the occult, Sat Sang, Theosophy, various cosmologies (plenty more on that later), African mythology, and a host of other marginal beliefs. This blog is my way of starting to put it all together.”
I sincerely hope that your journey does not become your goal, but that you will find the answers that you are looking for.
Anthropology + Theosophy = Anthroposophy
ReplyDeleteCheck it.
Anthroposophy.
Seriously. It's sophisticated gnosticism.
But you have to assume that God actually exists in order to avoid seeing it as fantasy fairytales with a racist undertone.
As for five... wtf dude? orthodoxy and fundamentalism are next door neighbours! Hitler also liked Wagner and he was vegetarian. So, does anyone who like wagner and vegetarianism therefore qualify as Nazi? Hitler tried to assassinate Steiner and he rejected Theosophy.
ReplyDeleteJeez.
Just because Nazism and theosophy happened to coincide in time and geography, you assume there to be a causal connection and intimacy between the two. That is very unfair in my opinion. It's like accusing Socrates of decadent homosexual delinquency
Five solas: shew buddy! Gimmie a couple of days to read through your comment before I respond- epic comment!
ReplyDeleteCg: "theosophical anthropology" is really a term I made up to describe my approach- its not perfect- but it explains it kinda succinctly. It'll make more sense in time. As for gnosticism: yes its very interesting- there's a whole blog on its way about them and why the early christians hated them so much.
As for "having to believe in god" I disagree- in my own journey it was only when I gave up the notion that there had to be a god that I found him/her/it.
At the end of the day: they are "fantasy fairytales" and many religions are inherently racist because of how they are formed. This doesn't mean anything about my friend God however. It says more about the human species than it does about God.
Religious texts make God in our image- more on that later five solas- but that doesn't mean that the entity we are trying to explain has no form. It is an inherent characteristic of religion that if you were born in india you would more than likely be a hindu, in japan: a buddhist, etc... Religion is more cultural than it is spiritual - but again: this doesn't change my friend God, only how we choose to interact with him.
Cg: just got your second comment: wow!
ReplyDeleteNot quite how I would have put it but pretty much on the money!
Cg - huge difference between orthodoxy and fundamentalism. Whereas orthodoxy refers to the integrity of the concept, fundamentalism characterizes our approach to that concept. Please note that I made pains to refer to orthodoxy in the correct sense of the word - "orthos" and "doxa". Whilst they might live next door to each other doesn't mean that they're always necessarily friends.
ReplyDeleteAs for your comment regarding my reference to Hitler and Theosophy - again my submission that I had incidentally watched a documentary on the connection that exists. In fact, please google "Hitler and Theosophy"and read some of the 834 000 results - you may not find a connection between vegetarianism and Nazism, but there will be enough food to illustrate my point.
And Zill - by using the stretched logic that he has, I'm afraid cg's second comment is way off the money.
Ok so basically we can all argue our relevant points of view all evening- metaphorically placing our cocks on the table for measurement- but what's the point? What I know is governed by what I've read, what you know is governed by what you've read, what cg knows is governed by what he's read. In the end, none of us can claim to be "right" or in possession of truth. Everything has a context! Perhaps cg was a little off in his claims, perhaps he wasn't... This is not a peer reviewed session- he provided no sources. What he did provide, as did you, was something to look at. Just as you ask me to read your texts, perhaps this is him asking you to read his? (Albeit in a more colloquial, less structured way)
ReplyDeleteAnd five solas: just because you saw it on TV or read it on google doesn't make it true! Or does it? I don't know- that's kinda my point
Agge no man Zill; your comment regarding TV and Google doesn't add value to the conversation, if in fact a conversation is what you're hoping for.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately I didn't accompany Schafer or Harrer on their missions to Tibet in 1938-1939 to give you a first hand account of their findings. I had to watch a documentary on it years later. However, if you're keen you can always read his memoir "Seven years in Tibet" or "Himmler’s Crusade: The Nazi Expedition to Find the Origins of the Aryan Race" By Christopher Hale - John Wiley & Sons, 2003. Still not sure if it makes what I said "true", but it's a good start to getting to know the "facts". Then again - if we're going to start doubting what happened a mere 70 years ago, then there's little chance that we will trust the recorded accounts of what happened 2000 years ago - a classic post-modern dilemma.
In response to the rest of your comment allow me to borrow from CS Lewis: "Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered".
(Still trying to make up my mind whether it's an audience or a conference that you seek)
Once again- I have to disagree- my TV comment totally adds value as a response to your cited source.
ReplyDeleteIt is even relevant to this comment! The "post-modern dilemma" you speak of is not a dilemma! It is true what you say about trusting even peoples recorded thought and perceptions of events! We should be weary of accepting any account! (I did tell you this was a post-modern approach)
As for trusting the accounts of 2000 years ago- come on don't be vauge- you know I don't! This is not your feeling I know, and I respect that, but dude: no need for animosity!
As for whether I am after an audience or a conference: I don't know- this is just what it is: and it will evolve over time. Actually that's not true: this is a thought followed by some healthy conversation.
feel free to participate or not
Lastly: you obviously feel a deep attachment to the
(Continued from above)
ReplyDelete"Recorded accounts" of 2000 years ago. Can I ask: why those accounts and not others? Of the many choices, why did you choose those?
Zill - apologies for coming across aggressive - I was still trying to put my gloves on when cg's first blow landed and clearly hadn't gained composure by the time I responded to yours. No animosity intended.
ReplyDeleteSolas! It's all good buddy!
ReplyDeleteThis is the kind of thing that is bound to happen when you talk about this subject! Everyone feels strongly about their, well, feelings. And they would.
My hope is that this blog can become a place to share ideas rather than fight about them.
I'd still really like an answer to my previous question I put to you. It would really help direct the next blog. Solas! It's all good buddy!
This is the kind of thing that is bound to happen when you talk about this subject! Everyone feels strongly about their, well, feelings. And they would.
My hope is that this blog can become a place to share ideas rather than fight about them.
I'd still really like an answer to my previous question I put to you. It would really help direct the next blog.
Zill, regarding an answer to your question: The temptation is great to enter into a lengthy apologetic discourse regarding the historical, archaeological and textual consistency and accuracy of the Bible, but I'll give it in one simple sentence - it reveals compellingly the historical figure of Jesus as God's Messiah and therefore, by implication, establishing it's adequacy as instruction for all things pertaining to life and godliness.
ReplyDeleteThanks solas: I appreciate your answer!
ReplyDeleteAs I said earlier: I wish I could do as you have done and take it on it's face value. I can see we are going to have many an interesting conversation!
Please understand going forward that this blog is not an attack on christianity, but rather an exploration of how we as humans have interacted with the thing we call "God"
Looking forward to the interesting conversations that you anticipate, Zill. The last thing I want you to do, however, is to take anything on on it's face value...I certainly don't. Jesus, approached by a lawyer who wanted to know which of the commandments were the greatest, answered: "Thou shalt love the Lord with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind". Faith, contrary to popular belief, has as much to do with establishing the "trustworthiness" of its object as it has to do with our "trust" in it...
ReplyDeleteTo Zill
ReplyDeleteIs it permissible here that my contributions to any further conversations take the form of an attack on orthodox christianity?
(Not an attack on you or any body else, but an attack on the demonic evil thing called orthodox christianity.)
Hi
ReplyDeleteWow I though I was the only one who reviewed all those sources looking for God, the supreme creator, whatever you call him (What's in a Name? A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet)It's quite a tricky thing to try and understand with the mind what can only be experienced with the heart.
I think that we yearn for God because we desire transcendence and self actualisation, and need to work from the level of the spirit to get there. I think it's all about the love, less about the labels.
I read on with interest- Go Zill! Is brave to ask questions, or state such things. Lots of haters- I just want to live the love, the love the supreme shows me is my truth. A lot of people want to convince others that their truth is THE truth and force you to believe it. It might be refreshing for you that I agree with what you're saying :)
With so many Catholics about I should, perhaps, whisper when I confide that I started out as an Anglican. But the process of extracting oneself seems much the same.
ReplyDeleteTrappers have those nasty, snappy things with the jagged teeth. Religion tends to opt for a more humane cage approach. It works best with an enticing entrance craftily constructed such that it only allows One-Way traffic. Not many escape. I remember all the wandering I did before I discovered my own Ultimate Truth.
So these days, my interest in the subject is purely narcissistic. As wrong as everyone always is, it is still amusing to hear everyone's opinion. I sometimes forget how important I am to everyone.
Since you all want the truth however, I thought I might indulge you all. The fact is, I did it all inadvertently. I wasn't paying attention; I was thinking about other things; I was unaware of my power over the world; I conjured you all up into existence without even knowing I'd done it.
So, while I freely admit that, as God, the world I have created is entirely my responsibility - I must also admit that I didn't (and still don't) have any idea of how to go about things. You all seem to have such great expectations of me that it becomes difficult to explain that I created you all to be Gods in your own right.
I did bring you into my world creation to serve my own purposes, but, if you think it had anything to do with worshipping me then you misread my purposes. I can't honestly tell you what those purposes were, however, because just like you, I am haven't figured it all out yet.
Someday, I hope to become the God I have the potential to be, but until then, I fervently hope that some of you will make the same attempt and relieve me of carrying ALL the responsibility.
@Ian:
ReplyDeleteThat's quite funny, if YOU had shown up a couple of thousand years ago, there would have been absolutely no reason to crucify YOU. Hmmm...
You're not a member of LDS, heading for your own planet one day, are you, Ian? :)
@Zill:
Hi, I'm enjoying your blog, despite there being a distinct difference in the paths each of us have travelled in this path to find the person known as God.
One thing that's struck me... is the humility and lack of arrogance in your writing about "Him", and the love that glows through the thoughts and ideas.
Thanks so much for your comment, Hope. I am acutely aware that this kind of writing/discussion often leads to arrogant statements and "I-am-right-and-your-are-wrong" kind of talk, and I try desperately to stay away from it.
ReplyDeleteYour comment made my day - thanks again.