Is there such a thing as a deity?

[mamab]

I don't think anyone can answer that question for another, and I don't know if "God" can be verified. Yes, I believe in God. Can I prove He exists? No, I can just tell you that I'm a different person than I was before. I believe I am more loving than I used to be and that the differences in me are verifiable. Just ask my husband.

Can I "prove" that God exists? No. Can you "prove" to me that He doesn't?

 

[dong]

Nope! And I don't consider it necessary to or not to. Bottom line: faith is one of those things that no matter how much you talk around it, still has an essentially autonomous component. Personally, it is my choice that my current conceptual framework generally disallows for a traditionally theistic notions and it is my awareness of this which makes me wish to carry out useful dialogues...like the one in this thread!

 

[mtatum4496]

When it comes to religious matters, I tend to remember the advice I found in a novel by Robert A. Heinlein. One of his more popular characters once observed "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

The point being that while I am always happy to discuss religious matters with others, I long ago abandoned the concept of "converting" others to my way of thinking. If I happen to say something they find value in, that may eventually lead to the individual choosing to alter his or her mindset of their own accord.

Being Universalist in my foundational faith understandings, I tend to try to see the good in others, try to learn something about different ideologies and cultures, and am free to operator on the assumption that each of us find our own way to the Ultimate Reality in our own way and our own time.

Not believing in eternal punishment kinda helps a little too.

 

[dong]

The point being that while I am always happy to discuss religious matters with others, I long ago abandoned the concept of "converting" others to my way of thinking. If I happen to say something they find value in, that may eventually lead to the individual choosing to alter his or her mindset of their own accord.

...

Not believing in eternal punishment kinda helps a little too.

Yes, I do agree with this point (it's the same as Agaric's above). But there is one problem I am aware of when it comes to traditional interpretations of Christianity here: the evangelical imperative of the Great Commission. It is claimed that the religion/faith is meaningless without the initiative to spread the word, for propogation against all odds is the trademark of the faith in early times. While I don't think it is nearly as applicable nowadays there seems to be substantial philosophical grounds for claiming that it still behooves one of the faith to actively spread it- usually though this is accompanied by the counterbalancing threat that if one doesn't follow this they are somewhat incomplete or not genuine in their faith.

When I hear this I quip Paul's words which go back to Jesus' words about leading by example at these would-be-evangelists. There is no point in preaching about Christianity if one cannot legitimately defend their own integrity (Jesus had a lot to say about that too), and as it stands, it's a sad truth but most people seem to have gotten it very very wrong. This is why I am critical of most outreach and organised evangelical groups: their religious intentions supervene on their altruistic intentions and this usually undermines, not strengthens result.

 

[mtatum4496]

I think the difference here when it comes to the Great Commission is that the directive is to proclaim the beliefs - not to shove them down somebody's throat and tell them they are bound for eternal torment if they don't accept them.

So on the one hand, yes the true believer can and should be willing to express his or her beliefs - both in word and in deed. But it is one thing for me to tell you what I believe to be true - it is quite another for me to preface my profession with verbiage that indicates that you must believe as I believe or you are lost. The Great Commission does not authorize or impel me to engage in that type of behavior.

 

[dong]

I think the difference here when it comes to the Great Commission is that the directive is to proclaim the beliefs - not to shove them down somebody's throat and tell them they are bound for eternal torment if they don't accept them.

I believe that this is quite clear- although necessarily subject to interpretation. The irony here is that I acknowledge the interpretational bias but I insist on certain aspects...just like those who choose to ram it down your throats.

 

[tater03]

I belive in God, no I don't have any proof all I can say is that believing helps me in all aspects of my life. I also don't hide that I believe but I also don't impose my beliefs on others.

 

[hokeshel]

Some people are going to think this it pretty far out there but, here ya go. I believe that not only is there a God watching over us but, that he is in partnership with a Goddess. I think that there are many worlds out there we can not even comprehend. I think that they there are Gods of these other worlds as well.

 

[mtatum4496]

There's more of that mindset than you may be aware of Hokeshel. Along with the Heavenly Mother concept that you are familiar with, many faith traditions acknowledge the presence of the Divine Feminine with their concept of God or within their understanding of multiple deities.

 

[mamab]

I, personally, have a problem with the concept of a Divine Feminine. Granted, I'm coming from a Judeo-Christian background, but I just can't grasp it. It just doesn't "feel" right to me. In the Cherokee tradition, of which I'm learning more of since I found out of my heritage, they also see "God" as being male more than female. I don't know that I'll ever be able to accept a goddess or divine feminine idea. It may be fine for someone else, they're welcome to believe what they want, but I think it's wrong.

 

[hokeshel]

Mamab, when you say God is more male than female are you referring to two different beings, as I am, or; are you referring to one God that has a feminine and masculine side? Do you mean that there may be some feminine Godly influence ro that there is only masculine influence? DO you believe in multiple Gods or just one?

 

[dong]

brief interjection: Were one to follow a traditional Judeo-Christian interpretation, then by definition that would be strictly a singular deity. I really don't think that the question of gendered alignment is a core concern as far as theology goes, BUT in social terms it's a significant question. One could argue that the insistence on an interpretation of He and our Heavenly Father is rooted in a chauvinist patriarchy which often manifests in most societies graced by the Judeo-Christian presence, but as you can see this is quite obviously an issue of gender politics more than anything else.

 

[mtatum4496]

Early Christianity certainly was more diverse in its understanding of Deity than what became normative Christianity at the time of the various councils and the final assembly of the New Testament canon. The Unitarianism of the 17th through the 19th century can trace itself back to early days, as can just about any gnostic version of Christianity, as well as the concept of the Father, Son, and Spirit being separate entities with the last two working under the direction of the Father.

It is important to remember that what we have come to think of as traditional or normative Christianity did not emerge full blown - it took a lot of infighting for power and a lot of political manuevering to come up with what most folks would swear is "true" Christianity.

One thing I do wonder about - are there are documented works from the first century or two of Christianity that tell us more about the role of women in the early church? That to me seems to be a missing piece of the puzzle, aside from the occasional reference here or there.

 

[dong]

Thanks for that. The interesting (or frustrating) thing is that as far as politics goes, at present a consideration of the histoy of the Church is seen as largely irrelevant, although it could really shed some very important light on what is consistent and what isn't (because that's always a huge argument).

I suspect that documented works from the early days of Christianity would have been lost, either because they've scattered to the winds or because they were systematically destroyed as part of a patriarchal plot, or perhaps because the patriarchy already existed in society, they were never written.

 

[mtatum4496]

I suspect you are correct, Dong. Destroying documents so that a new status quo can be achieved, or as a means of protecting a status quo, is not anything new.

Heck, think of all we could know about the cultures of the indigenous American cultures if so much of their records had not been destroyed by European explorers and their attendant priests, who wanted to rid the natives of their heathen ways.