Vicar Philip

Upon a recommendation by my non-theistic pastor, I checked out "Here I Stand," an auto-biography of Spong. Interesting read.

I was curious to find out what the folks here at II thought about some of Spong's ideas. He promotes an end to traditional Christianity, an end to picturing God as a being in heaven guiding people on earth. Instead, he likens God to the "ground of being," a concept introduced by Paul Tillich.

So my question is this: If we as humans feel the need to define our existence, our very being, is it so wrong to call that essence of our lives "God?" Or does this concept simply reduce the question to a matter of semantics?

rainbow walking

Hi VP,



So my question is this: If we as humans feel the need to define our existence, our very being, is it so wrong to call that essence of our lives "God?" Or does this concept simply reduce the question to a matter of semantics?

After having been a christian for many years and now an atheist for over a year I'm just beginning to realize that any thing outside of ourself that we attribute a definition of our existence to is just an illusion. The brute fact of our existence and being is not so glamorous and even seems selfish most of the time but it's the real thing. While I was a christian I believed that my identity was bound up in something greater than myself and this was a comfortable, safe place to hide. But I eventually came to realize that even when I was doing the most charitable deeds I was still deriving personal self gratification and was eyeing every facet of my faith thru the same old "what's in it for me". Eternal life, respect from my peers, the warm fuzzies, a congregation of minds attuned to me (when behind the pulpit). I could never escape this paradox and neither can anyone else regardless of what external concept we attempt to erect to make our self interest seem less selfish.

IMO when people begin to experience those "there's just got to be more to life than this" feelings, they're experiencing a deep dissatisfaction with their current identity. It's the gentle stirrings of their personhood telling them a change is needed.

I guess if it makes you feel better to believe there's a higher purpose for your existence and being then go for it, but just remember, it opens you up to levels of credulity that can be exploited. Perhaps we all need a little make believe in our lives to lessen the harsh glare of reality. I'd say it's healthy to pretend sometimes. Hell, that's why Hollywood is such a powerful art form. Eventually though you'll change and so will your pretensions. (shrug) You should check out the thread entitled "Critical Perfection" and read LongWindedFools last remarks. You might find his methodology appealing. It's certainly the most balanced, least harmful symbiosis I've ever seen.

diana

rainbow walking,

Enjoyed your post.

Vicar Philip,

What, exactly, do you mean by "define our existence, our very being"? (Define? What essence?)

What do you mean by "essence of our lives"?

The concepts in the last sentence seem just as disembodied to me: "this concept" (what concept?) and "the question" (what question?).

Your question is very fuzzy. I think you're likely to find the answer yourself if you clearly define, with examples, what you mean by the general ideas you're combined.

d

Amos

There is nothing wrong with that because God is the essence of our very being. We are created in the image of God and became co-creators with God to keep God (our own essence) abreast of the bio and sociological changes made around us. This "keeping abreast" makes evolution possible and makes God the intelligent designer that resides [also] within the species man. So God is the essence of our existence that we procreate in our image as we move through the ages along the road-dust of the sun (out of the contradiction found between good and evil).

The problem with making this a "statement of faith" is that it removes the purpose of religion wherein this statement of faith must emerge from nature itself. In other words, to say that "we are God" does not help us find who we really are.

Life is a journey and faith must be implanted before it can find understanding. For this to be possible we must be facing in the right direction and whatever we accept by faith must be grounded in truth before it can gain ascent in understanding. In this area is found the secret of a true religion.

Vicar Philip

Diana,

I guess what I'm trying to do is convince myself, perhaps unsuccessfully, that I can still use the term "god" and have it actually mean something to me. My purpose in doing so is simply to not be accused by my wife of "not believing in god." This seems so important to her and devastating if I do not believe in some form of god. I, personally, have absolutely no need for belief in god to live my life. I'm only attempting to come up with a definition of god that I can be comfortable with when discussing religious matters with her.

Maybe I'm just fooling myself. You have to understand that I am treading on thin ice whenever we talk about god and religion. I also respect the strides that Spong has made in getting people to think differently about their beliefs.

Yes, I'm being deliberately fuzzy in my "question," and you immediately saw through it. As I said above I'm trying to come to some sort of mental compromise with myself to still be able to talk about god. It might be a waste of time.

Amos, I appreciate your post, but part of it leaves me puzzled. You mention intelligent design right next to evolution. I didn't think proponents of ID embraced evolution? Or am I wrong? I know this is off-topic, sorry.

Amos

Vicar be gentle with your wife because your spiritual liberation (maturation) is normal and should be expected from all believers.

First lesson: As a freethinker you should not be concerned about "proponents' of anything! Just follw my reasoning: remember you stated that God is the essence of our existence (and indeed he is). To this I added that we are co-creators with God and procreate God (our own essence) after our own image. The reason that we are co-creators is because we modify our own essence in response to the changes in our environment. If this is true is it also not true then that when we change the essence of our existence we also change the image of God?

This places God in nature and the intelligence of God is a direct result of our intimacy with nature derrived through sense perception in our effort to survive in a changing environment.

philechat

If you must use the word "God", then check out, say, Scientific Pantheism, where God is identified with a reverence of this life and the universe. Otherwise, you can subtly equate God with the indifferent working of fate and chance, knowing that they are forces of nature without regards to human morality or welfare.

I personally think many pantheists do not differ in philosophical outlook from the atheists (or that I did not find that subtle distinction between them except name-wise). It's a semantics problem in essence. But I doubt your wife will accept a completely impersonal "pantheist god" as a substitute for the Christian sky-daddy.

One way to approach the problem is to continue discussing "the holy book" with her as if the book is a piece of literature. Refrain from talking about "God's purpose", and focus instead on the poetic devices, cultural implications, and thematic concerns of the book. Leave the "reality-check" out for just a moment.

Unless, of course, you really do feel emotionally repulsed by the Bible.

Fiach

It is semantics. God being imaginary can be anything you want he/she/it to be. The believer defines his personal god.

Fiach

Amos

If it was semantics "realization" (our salvation including heaven and hell) would be impossible.

ReasonableDoubt

I've read some of Spong, and believe that I have much more respect for principled atheists. Spong does not accept many, if any, of the traditional tenets of Christianity, but for some reason wants to "hold on" to any Idea of God.
He's stated that he calls himself a Christian and still prays, etc. I just think he does not want to call himself an atheist (or agnostic?)