"I don't find anything very remarkable about this statement of faith in the Bible. If I…"
QuakerQuaker
Primitive Christianity Revived, Again
Why talking about God is rude?
I attended a large Meeting today, surrounded by good people talking a lot about "Love" but saying nothing about "God."
And later a committee meeting, in which people talked about "being effective" but again couldn't bring the "G word" to their lips-- and when I brought that up, several people there there were eager to shut me up and render me more 'peaceful'-- but some responses got me wondering...
Later, at home reading a Ram Dass book, a couple of things struck me. One was a story about a time when he'd been really disturbed about people not meeting his expectations-- which he was also having trouble meeting.
And then there was this, apropos my own spiritual life lately...
"What, in fact, is the point of any of these practices, if we already are [Brahma]? They're to get rid of whatever in us prevents us from knowing who we are at this moment. See, from a practical point of view, we're faced with an interesting paradox. At one level of our intellectual understanding, we know that we already have all the riches-- we know that we are the atman, that we are the Buddha, that we are free. We know all that. But if we look inside, we'll notice that although we know it, we somehow don't believe it. ... All of [these practices], by one route or another, are designed to get around that roadblock between our knowing and our believing."
At least this points up, for me, much of the difficulty of talking about God.
I used to think that "knowing" God was obviously better than "believing in" God, because it does mean direct experience rather than "pretending to believe something you really don't."
But confronted with people who have been socially conditioned to avoid God-talk, knowing they're violating the accepted consensus view of Rationality&Reasonableness if they allow it any credence, it sometimes feels a lot safer not to risk "offering pearls to the poor hungry swine." Even for me.
It may be that I'm just a bit more "out" about "Theism-- the love that dares not speak its name" [these days] than some people...
We all have to struggle between our initial "common sense" and recognition of God at work in, around, & through us... and while Friends are supposed to embody a certain consistency, some of the more fruitful influences may just need to work covertly within our inconsistencies, for now...
And later a committee meeting, in which people talked about "being effective" but again couldn't bring the "G word" to their lips-- and when I brought that up, several people there there were eager to shut me up and render me more 'peaceful'-- but some responses got me wondering...
Later, at home reading a Ram Dass book, a couple of things struck me. One was a story about a time when he'd been really disturbed about people not meeting his expectations-- which he was also having trouble meeting.
And then there was this, apropos my own spiritual life lately...
"What, in fact, is the point of any of these practices, if we already are [Brahma]? They're to get rid of whatever in us prevents us from knowing who we are at this moment. See, from a practical point of view, we're faced with an interesting paradox. At one level of our intellectual understanding, we know that we already have all the riches-- we know that we are the atman, that we are the Buddha, that we are free. We know all that. But if we look inside, we'll notice that although we know it, we somehow don't believe it. ... All of [these practices], by one route or another, are designed to get around that roadblock between our knowing and our believing."
At least this points up, for me, much of the difficulty of talking about God.
I used to think that "knowing" God was obviously better than "believing in" God, because it does mean direct experience rather than "pretending to believe something you really don't."
But confronted with people who have been socially conditioned to avoid God-talk, knowing they're violating the accepted consensus view of Rationality&Reasonableness if they allow it any credence, it sometimes feels a lot safer not to risk "offering pearls to the poor hungry swine." Even for me.
It may be that I'm just a bit more "out" about "Theism-- the love that dares not speak its name" [these days] than some people...
We all have to struggle between our initial "common sense" and recognition of God at work in, around, & through us... and while Friends are supposed to embody a certain consistency, some of the more fruitful influences may just need to work covertly within our inconsistencies, for now...
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Kenneth Lawrence Schroeder on -
I love God!
-
Permalink Reply by Rupert Booth on -
Kenneth
Thanks for your brevity and reminding me of the thread. Paradoxically it prompted a recall of the superfluity of the Names of God. Apparently Judaism has 72 and Islam aims higher with 99 (I do not know what all these are except I am certain none is rude), though the early Hebrews were more economical, making do with seven
My favourite detail is that the first mention of God in the Hebrew Old Testament is a plural noun, Elohim, though some insist that it is single for this occasion (but no other).
Rupert
1 John 4:8. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love
-
Permalink Reply by Ray McIntyre on -
The word 'God' carries with it a LOT of baggage. The intolerance of fundamentalists, the perfidy of wars committed in God's name, inquisitions, crusades, hatred and more. Sometimes it is easier to talk of love and of acceptance than it is to use such a loaded word.
Myself I talk about the 'Really Real', the 'Founder of the firm' and the Ground of our being but rarely about God per se.
-
Permalink Reply by Ray McIntyre on
-
It is not a reason to cede control of the word but it is a reason to be careful in it's use. Far too many people use the word to make what they do acceptable. After all if we do something in God's name does it not seem unassailable?
-
Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on
-
Four (& sometimes 3)-letter words have more oomph! Euphemism... is not supposed to be a Quaker thing; we're supposed to be plain in our speech. (I know, committeespeak has replaced Plain Speech as the new Quaker language, but not for poets! We waste away, we suffer miseries under its pollution!)
Sometimes a metaphor will help understanding better than a word, especially one that (as you say) has been subject to a certain amount of misreading. But "Founder of the firm"? "Founder of the Firmament," if we want to get archaic about this, but I don't think we get far using a business as a model for the universe and its workings, not nearly as much mileage as considering the universe a garden or a pasture.... "Ground of our being" makes sense if you already understand what it means... but I don't expect it works on anyone who doesn't already understand 'existence' as a side-effect of the nature of God.
"Love" and "acceptance" are nice things... but pretty wimpy, pretty thin as foundations for the intensely real life in us and for the universe we find ourselves inhabiting.
-
Permalink Reply by Ray McIntyre on
-
Unfortunately the word "God" brings all kinds of baggage with it. St. Francis of Assisi told his monks to speak of God by their lives first and their words last. People need to see compassion and caring in action rather than someone talking to them 'about God.'
-
-
People need a world fit to live in... and they don't get that from materialist scientism, no matter how compassionately it might be conveyed to them. What it takes to help a person actually know that they're living within God's compassion, well, that's an open question.
"Baggage?" That would be 'the Gotcha God' of various Christian (& some Islamic) orthodoxies...? Definitely an impediment to faith, but can be distinguished from the God We've Got.
"Compassion & caring" probably does help, in terms of convincing people that "I'd like to be like those people"-- but when it turns out to be all "those people" have to offer, it's pretty thin stuff.
-
Permalink Reply by Cotswold Quaker on -
Ray, I share your views on the complexity of the word 'god'. I find many who use it- both theists and nontheists- use the word without really knowing what they mean by it. When I ask people what they mean by it, we often then find ourselves in more interesting and better, more intimate sharing. There is a growing movement among people from many different faiths, to want to go beyond the constraints of the traditional, historic words used to define their faith in the world. In conversation with a catholic priest recently he told me he felt the traditional language of christianity is getting in the way of unity with people from other faiths and none, limiting christian development in the modern world. I find the same views expressed by many Quakers. It seems misguided to me, that some Quakers strive to create a form of Quaker life that imitates and parodies the reality of the past. I have some sympathy for the hollywood zombie where the dead strive to be like the living. Life is wonderful and I can imagine wanting to be here if I wasn't. But why would the living emulate the dead? Philip Gross, a nontheist Friend and poet told me he uses the word 'god' in his poems as its a word that expresses something he doesn't have another word for. I wonder how theists read his poems? The words we use belong to us all, we all have ownership and liberty to give them the meaning we want. We can probably all do with more curiosity and getting behind the words we use so casually and ask each other what we are really trying to communicate when using the 'god' word.
-
Permalink Reply by Ray McIntyre on
-
Very few of those religions, Karen, carry quite the burden that it does in Christian circles. Need I remind followers of the Prince of Peace of the wars started in His name? Who told the rich young ruler to "give all he had to the poor", how much damage has been done to nations and peoples under the guise of Christianity-endorsed rampant capitalism?
-
-
I don't find many people eager to explore the "complexities" of "what people mean by the word "God";
I find people who:
a) Know God and are usually willing to share what we've learned from God.
b) Don't know God, but do have a concept of God which they may think ought to be imposed on people, for one well-intentioned purpose or another
c) Find themselves, for now, knowing God "through a glass darkly" while still partially captive to their initial "ideas about" God.
or
d) Don't know that reality we call "God," and seem scared to death that the word "God", despite it's misuses, really does point to something beyond 'reality' as they know it, something more powerful than them which may not care about "what they think" , but only about "how things are."
-
Permalink Reply by Beth Belch on -
I haven't read all the thoughtful responses, but will respond directly to the question Forrest. I have to admit, I am one who has a "knee jerk" reaction to God, Jesus, and Christian. It's largely because of the context in which I learned them. "God" was usually followed by some variant of "you/these people are wrong and going to hell." "Jesus" tended to mean "if you were a real Christian", and Christian- was used most and loudest by the most hypocritical people.
So I suppose I'm dealing with a sort of spiritual PTSD. I respond to those things I learned before, even though they are not now being said. It is *my* struggle, and I think I am on the road to recovery. But I still am a bit leary of folks who use those words often. They still sound exclusive and judgemental to my ears, but my brain and heart can step in.
-
-
There were many years-- after I'd first become acquainted with God via funny pills and an overly-interesting life-- when I literally couldn't stand to read most "Christian" books.
Other religions sometimes fit what I was experiencing. And Jesus, in the occasional "historical Jesus" book-- because I very much wanted to know what was "really going on" with the world, and knew he fit in there somehow!
It was after some years, and being quite sure of the answer, that I could timidly ask-- "Hey, You don't really do that to people, do you?" Way too much human politics in religion, from the very beginning. It's meant to be the other way around, whenever we get there!
Tip Jar
It takes many hours a month to sift through hundreds of websites to come up with this daily curated list of the best of the Quaker web. If you learn more about Friends and find joy and spiritual growth in the conversations these links provide, please consider supporting the ministry with a monthly subscription.
You can also make a one-time donation.
Latest Activity
William F Rushby commented on Doug Bennett's blog post 'Biblical Inerrancy Watch: the Evangelical Free Church of America'
James C Schultz commented on Doug Bennett's blog post 'Biblical Inerrancy Watch: the Evangelical Free Church of America'"One of the versions of the bible that was popular when i first got "saved" was the…"
Doug Bennett posted a blog postBiblical Inerrancy Watch: the Evangelical Free Church of America
May 22, 2013In response to…See More
Irene Lape commented on Irene Lape's blog post 'Daily Old Testament and Early Christian Writings: Numbers 31-32 and Origen's De Principiis: Book One - 6-7'"It is true, we are in many ways, bound by the time we know we are in; but what is so amazing about…"
Paul Smith commented on Irene Lape's blog post 'Daily Old Testament and Early Christian Writings: Numbers 31-32 and Origen's De Principiis: Book One - 6-7'"I have gradually become aware that I conceive of God in human likeness because I have no language…"
Paul Smith liked Irene Lape's blog post Daily Old Testament and Early Christian Writings: Numbers 31-32 and Origen's De Principiis: Book One - 6-7"Thank you, Friends, for your comments. David, I appreciate what you have to say, though…"
Irene Lape posted a blog postDaily Old Testament and Early Christian Writings: Numbers 31-32 and Origen's De Principiis: Book One - 6-7
Numbers 31 - Twelve thousand men, 1000 from each of the tribes, are sent out by Moses to attack the…See More
Top Site Content
About QuakerQuaker
QuakerQuaker is a community of Friends exploring Primitive Christianity Revived: plain witness, ministry, beliefs. Quaker blogs, photos, videos & gatherings. Learn More.
Subscribe in a reader
Get daily emails
Facebook
iTunes / Podcast
Twitter / Twitter Quaker List
Advertise:
© 2013 Created by QuakerQuaker.
