Not sure what to believe anymore

[Tinker Grey]

Ah, ok. Still agreed. I would also suggest that both do explain away particular concepts of God even if they cannot explain away "God." And depending on how tightly a person holds onto their particular God-concept, addressing the concept can seem to be the same as explaining away "God." It's high trauma!

Oh what an awesome question! It was so awesome I meditated on it while eating dark chocolate.

Bless your ex-pastor's heart. I reread this entire thread earlier today, and several great comments on this issue have already been made. Moriah made one point about the magic trick of Santa Claus -- the trick re anonymous gifting, service, and community that parents perform for children, which children receive, then discard when they're 8-ish, and yet often return to as adults for their children's sake and to teach them the larger lessons. Moriah then compared this to the acts that clergymen and women often perform in the context of their formal ritual and "worship" roles, and I've found this to be especially true of those clergy who are as clearminded as you are, Tinker. Often they understand the limits of the forms they're using, and so they use those forms as a means of helping others to experience larger meaning. The forms are like an access point, or a bridge, but they're certainly not the destination. That doesn't make them valueless.

I'm trying to pour my experience into words now. My thoughts are that worship *is* full-body, but not in the extended hands sense. It's full-body in the sense that it's about full-being. I'm wondering, if you put a time-lapse camera somewhere in my life, what you would see and how you would describe my worshipping, or if you would recognize it as worshipping at all! You would see things like pauses, reading, meditation and listening and then speaking and writing (i.e. inspiration and expiration), gratitude and appreciation, and social action, and my lifework. You would also see church, groups, forums, and relationships. And random conversations with friends and strangers, some of which might have something to do with religion but all of which have something to do with healthy humanhood...

Some might struggle with recognizing "worship" in all of the above because the concept of worship as we've been using it implies separation between worshipper and worshipped. There will inevitably be separation if the premise is "bow." The concept therefore also implies all sorts of mediating beliefs as necessary to point out the gap or try to bridge it.

When I'm replacing that separation with union, I become "one" again, I lack nothing, and I'm free to be, walk, live, love, act. We all are, and need no commentary. Under such circumstances, you're correct, there isn't "other"; I don't feel foreign to God or to people or nature; I embrace all and am embraced by all. It's both grounding and elevating at the same time. As McCoy said back in the way-back, "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it." At least, not as we know it while we insist on separation.

I'm not yet sure what else to tell you.

Great answer ... but that wasn't the question I was asking. Seriously, it is a good question about the nature of worship and a sense of oneness.

But, what I want to know is oneness with what? Is God other? How does one perceive that. Is it your conception that God is transcendent? Hence my question, "if there is no other, what are you worshiping?" {Emphasis added.}

I assume with my question that there is a coherence between the sense that we have a "spirit" and the assumption that God is spirit. Is the question of a spirit-body duality more coherent than a mind-body duality? If not, what is God?

I wonder if you are approaching God in some sort of Buddhist sense. I find it interesting reading about Muslim and Christian intellectuals including Aquinas. My sense is that as they attempt to understand or coherently define God that they bleed into a more impersonal God/force. Is this where you are?

Thanks again.

 

[AzA]

NPR's All Things Considered is doing a weeklong series on The Science of Spirituality.

Today was the first installment.

The God Chemical: Brain Chemistry And Mysticism : NPR

Cheers bro... I hope to get to this in a couple of days. Traveling.

Great answer ... but that wasn't the question I was asking. Seriously, it is a good question about the nature of worship and a sense of oneness.

But, what I want to know is oneness with what? Is God other? How does one perceive that. Is it your conception that God is transcendent? Hence my question, "if there is no other, what are you worshiping?" {Emphasis added.}

I assume with my question that there is a coherence between the sense that we have a "spirit" and the assumption that God is spirit. Is the question of a spirit-body duality more coherent than a mind-body duality? If not, what is God?

I wonder if you are approaching God in some sort of Buddhist sense. I find it interesting reading about Muslim and Christian intellectuals including Aquinas. My sense is that as they attempt to understand or coherently define God that they bleed into a more impersonal God/force. Is this where you are?

Thanks again.

Thanks for rearticulating your question and calling me back to order, lol! Yes there is a persistent dualism in that question -- you've pinned it down with the paragraph about spirit-body. I think ditching "mind-body" and replacing it with "spirit-body" only moves goalposts; it doesn't change the game. The game is "How many ways can we split ourselves apart? Again! Again, lol!"

ittarter got me talking a little bit about where I'm at conceptually in his thread on prayer. I do recognize an impersonal approach to God, but not to the exclusion of a personal approach. I imagine some Christians might find this odd. But as you say, there's plenty of precedent for it within and outside of the tradition. By the way, if you think there's someone I should read, please recommend.

I do experience God as I move around the world. I'm not sure that, if the world is His creation and we are in His image, it could be any other way.

When defined from the perspective of "I make obeisance to you, my Liege," worship is predicated on separation between the one being honored and the one honoring:
This is fair enough. Sometimes, like during a lightning storm, that's how I feel. That presence is so powerful, so beautiful. And so very different from me.

When defined from the perspective of "I recognize you as me; therefore my psychic immune system recognizes you as me and I can draw you close or be drawn close to you without attacking you with my T-cells," worship is predicated on plural union:
And my sense is that there's something greater happening in that union than just a heap of parts. Yes, something "transcendent" but also something systemic that cannot be divided without loss to the whole.

Separation-model worship involves a clear Other that one could point to and say "That -- I'm worshipping That."
Union-model worship has no such Other but there is a Whole of which one is part. And in simply being, in union, one worships. You could call this non-worship.

 

[Zionsfriend]

I was raised in a fundementalist, Pentecostal, Christian household. I believed in a literal Genesis (creationism, Noah's Ark, etc) until around my late teens, when I began to learn more about science.

I accepted evolution, etc and my beliefs in a literal Genesis fell away. However, it hasn't just stopped there, my beliefs in things like Satan, hell, etc have also gradually fallen away. Now I'm left wondering what I truely believe, whether I believe in Christianity at all anymore.

When I'm sitting in church listening to the sermon, a lot of things that the pastor says, that I used to believe, just seem plan ridiculous to me now.

I'm afraid this gradual process will eventually lead to atheism, which means giving up what I have believed for so many years, and having to face likely disappointment from my family (and possibly hostility).

Tbh, I felt fine about this whole process when it seemed to be happening naturally, it alsmost felt like I was an outside observer just wanting the process happen, rather than having an actualy role in it. But this past week or so I've been actively seeking out information atheism, I even bought The God Delusion, and I've been feeling physically sick and depressed about the whole thing.

Well that's all have to say, I just wanted to talk about this with Christians, who I know will be supportive, and who won't start blaming Satan for causing my doubt.

I would suggest an indepth study of evolutionism, both the pros and cons. I'm sure you know that micro-evolution (adaptation, usually within species) doesn't conflict with the Bible and is proven. Macro-evolution (major leaps in the evolutionary process) is not observable or testable by scientific means and is based mainly in the rationalized speculations of men.

An excellent article on Noah's ark can be found at the following link:

gnmagazine.org/issues/gn47/noahsark.htm

 

[AzA]

I assume with my question that there is a coherence between the sense that we have a "spirit" and the assumption that God is spirit. Is the question of a spirit-body duality more coherent than a mind-body duality?

Oh yeah, I thought this was important too.

I have never assumed that humans "have" a spirit in the same way that they "have" a liver. I know some churches describe man as body + spirit and/or + soul + mind or some mashup of the aforementioned, but mine didn't. Instead they described man, per Genesis 2, as body + breath of God = living soul. One could argue the merits of that composition all day long as some do, but part of its contribution is the integration of mind and consciousness and, hence, spiritual awareness into "body." The approach is holistic, doesn't allow for the denigration of the physical, treats spiritual perception as normal rather than as exceptional, and emphasizes God's ongoing presence and sustaining interaction with people.

This may be one more reason I hold the position I currently hold.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well, I don't know where to go with questions at this point.

But if you are going to believe, some form of holism seems a more reasonable approach than ye olde classical one.

 

[Gukkor]

Personally, I've never seen the whole separation/unity dichotomy as having much substance. To me, it seems like the two views compliment each other, rather than necessarily being opposed to each other.

 

[AzA]

I hear you, Tinker.

Personally, I've never seen the whole separation/unity dichotomy as having much substance. To me, it seems like the two views compliment each other, rather than necessarily being opposed to each other.

Yep: an inclusivist view draws a big circle around both rather than leaving one on the inside and one on the outside. One expands the meaning of the other.

 

[twmws]

Believes God created evolution, espcially in animals. Do I believe humans evolved from monkeys, um well not really. Have humans evolved, well yes, our brains have gotten bigger and with science we are living longer and in some cases grown taller than say 200 yrs ago.

 

[wiggsfly]

I have also questioned my faith (as I think all of us do whether we admit it or not). The key is to remember that science was originally pursued to explain God's methodology. It wasn't until later that as humans learned more of how God works in our world that they decided their knowledge of his methods was enough to dicredit his existence.

 

[AzA]

Hey Tinker --
I was doing some work just now, came across a short passage in some of my notes, and thought of you and our conversation here. The passage gets at some of the integrated ideas we had the other day.

Hope you're doing well!

If one uses reason in tracking down one's prey and in defending the common territory, one cannot stop using it when gazing at the starlit sky; reason cannot turn itself off. It is likewise impossible to reserve one's mystical feelings and mythical beliefs for times when these serve some positive function -- as in rituals which can take the place of real aggression -- and become unfeeling and unbelieving in daily life...
As you cannot uncook a half-cooked egg, so you cannot unlearn a half-acquired truth.

The statement is by a guy named Ervin Laszlo; I think he's done some pretty cool work in the area of systems theory and the integration of science, philosophy, and human society. There's a little book of his I read several months ago: The Systems View of the World: A Holistic Vision for Our Time. Short, provocative; you might check it out.

 

[Bick]

I was raised in a fundementalist, Pentecostal, Christian household. I believed in a literal Genesis (creationism, Noah's Ark, etc) until around my late teens, when I began to learn more about science.

I accepted evolution, etc and my beliefs in a literal Genesis fell away. However, it hasn't just stopped there, my beliefs in things like Satan, hell, etc have also gradually fallen away. Now I'm left wondering what I truely believe, whether I believe in Christianity at all anymore.

When I'm sitting in church listening to the sermon, a lot of things that the pastor says, that I used to believe, just seem plan ridiculous to me now.

I'm afraid this gradual process will eventually lead to atheism, which means giving up what I have believed for so many years, and having to face likely disappointment from my family (and possibly hostility).

Tbh, I felt fine about this whole process when it seemed to be happening naturally, it alsmost felt like I was an outside observer just wanting the process happen, rather than having an actualy role in it. But this past week or so I've been actively seeking out information atheism, I even bought The God Delusion, and I've been feeling physically sick and depressed about the whole thing.

Well that's all have to say, I just wanted to talk about this with Christians, who I know will be supportive, and who won't start blaming Satan for causing my doubt.

MY COMMENTS: My friend, you are not alone in what you are going through; I have read testimonies of others with similar stories.

There is a Christian organization, Reasons to Believe, whose web site is
www.reasons.org. It is staffed by Pres. Hugh Ross, PhD in Astronomy, Vice-Pres. Fazale Rana, PhD in Biology, Dave Rogstad, PhD in Physics and other scientists who are Christians.

They are evangelical in doctrine, and through lectures, radio talks, and publications, they present the view that science and the Bible are not at odds, but are compatible.

I would urge you, wblastyn and others, go to their web site and be enlightened as to the truth in God's Word, as well as nature. For all truth originates with God.

Here is a quote from one of their advertisment brochures:

"Even though scientific research as conducted at major universities follows the rules (worldview) of naturalism, this research points again and again to a reality beyond nature. Indicators of a transcendent, purposeful, personal Creator have grown to overwhelming proportions. Nontheists (and antitheists) at the cutting edge are perplexed. Yet most people outside the scientific community---and even many specialists within it---are unaware of the magnitude of the evidence."

Many excellent publications can be purchased over the internet.

Blessings, Bick

 

[Tinker Grey]

Hey Tinker --
I was doing some work just now, came across a short passage in some of my notes, and thought of you and our conversation here. The passage gets at some of the integrated ideas we had the other day.

Hope you're doing well!

The statement is by a guy named Ervin Laszlo; I think he's done some pretty cool work in the area of systems theory and the integration of science, philosophy, and human society. There's a little book of his I read several months ago: The Systems View of the World: A Holistic Vision for Our Time. Short, provocative; you might check it out.

Thank you for thinking of me. Things are going well. I hope you can say the same.

Since you recommend it, I might look into the book. But, I must say that that quote doesn't seem all that promising. Seems like he is engaging in mind reading. Perhaps with more context it sounds better.

Seriously, logical and rational people can't appreciate a sunset?

That passage is bit too black and white.

 

[Tinker Grey]

AzA,

OTOH, I suppose he might just be saying that people are different? That appreciating the stars is done thru that which makes us who we are?

Anyway, the first pass struck me wrong.

Feel free to correct me.

 

[AzA]

He's saying that people are different, and also that people are multifaceted. He's also saying that a framework that requires people to jettison Facet A in favor of Facet B, even when Facet A may be more appropriate in a certain context, does those people a disservice. Much post-secondary education privileges analytics, linear logic, knowledge by dissection. That has helped us to know a lot and in that knowing we've come to know that there are other ways to know!

Of course logical people enjoy sunsets; I certainly do. My analytic brain isn't oozing out of my ear while I'm experiencing a sunset with all my senses and intuitive side. My linear mind is simply not my lead tool in that moment; I have another tool to use and so lead with that.

In that section Laszlo is suggesting is that as a collective we've built up an overdependence on analytic when our synthetic side also has amazing gifts to bring us. And so collectively we will profit by reintegrating.

Watched a fascinating TED presentation the other day on the respective processing contributions of left and right brain hemispheres, described by a neurobiologist who'd observed herself during a stroke and recovery.

I do say Laszlo and other systemic writers may provoke you, lol (his is both a description and a manifesto, and manifestos often push the boat way out into the sea). But give it a shot and let's chat about it. It does not disparage logic; it simply proposes that logic is not the Sum and that an approach that accommodates the composite as well as its parts provides a more comprehensive picture of what's around us and what we're a part of.

I like that it doesn't denigrate the linear approach because this means it's not taking the low and easy road of doing the same pooping-on-the-other that the analytic framework has often done to the intuitive and relational approach. I wouldn't find it credible if it did "poopy."

The majority of the book, though, is less about this issue, and more about describing the several layers of systems we can see in the world (human beings included). It's a good stretch for that description alone... and interestingly, the description itself is linear!

 

[Tinker Grey]

Thanks for the recommendation and the expanded explanation.

I'll let you know if I buy the book. I could use some new material.