Who or What is God?

What needs do mythology and religion serve in today's world and in ancient times? Here we discuss the relationship between mythology, religion and science from mythological, religious and philosophical viewpoints.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Barry Stephens
Associate
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:00 am
Location: Dallas, Texas

Post by Barry Stephens »

Hello Ken,



My compliments! You are a good correspondent!



I really do not wish to engage in a debate. What I know and believe is a result of many years of searching, and much reading and prayer/meditation. I have attended worship ceremonies of every religion I can get to. I have read MANY books, not only Mr. Campbell's. I would agree with you statement that he was one smart guy.



It is apparent, without picking one particular statement in your post, that you tend to want to believe things literally. While I can also discern from your post that you are an intelligent person, regardless of the lack of "higher education" (usually overrated anyway!). You have displayed an admirable quality: willing to research your answers before replying! If only we all did that!



Put simply: I do not believe in God the same way you do. No amount of your "evidence" will change that. In MY opinion, the Biblical renderings of god (Jahweh, Father, Abba, etc) are not stories of what I feel the Ultimate Reality, the Inexhaustible Ground of Being is all about.



You may call me "New Age" or "Gnostic" or whatever seems to fit. I am beyond feeling sorry for what I believe. You seem to feel the same. In chess, that's a stalemate.



While I have some pretty good ideas about Reality (my version), I come to this site to discuss one of my favorite subjects: The Writings and Life of Joseph Campbell. I do not worship Professor Campbell, I do not think he is God, I simply think he was a very intelligent person, who had advantages most of us only dream of while growing up (traveling the globe, first rate education, time to read, read, read!), and used it to his advantage. He "Followed his Bliss". His findings resonate with me.



I wish you the best Ken, and if you would like to discuss Professor Campbell, or HIS thoughts about God, I would be more than happy to do that.



Peace, and best wishes,



Barry

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Barry Stephens on 2002-07-13 17:57 ]</font>

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

I am very impressed by the writing here. Excellent posts and ripostes! Ken I am very interested in one paragraph of yours:


Whereas in the secular side of the equation contemporary society has created an egalitarianism of ideas and consequently an elitism of people. And to back that up, let me suggest that with the advent of secularism came no conviction, with no sense of absolute right and wrong. With this came pluralization which was relativism without reason or of a reasonable harmony between theoretical and practical ideas. And then, when these systems failed us, in came privatization which has no reason other than the edification of the self. And I see much of this privatization of belief here. Faith becomes a matter of personal opinion and belief relative to one's personal ideology. It is, in a sense, a mulligan stew; add a little buddhism here where it is appealing, a little christianity there where sin and guilt are not concerned, some culture, now here mythos and, presto, we have created our own salvation plan.


By here are you referring to these discussions? This may be a rather patronizing stand, if so. I would like to respond, but first I would ask you to clarify the many assumptions inherent in your argument. I find the rest of your writing quite clear, well written and thought, but this rhetoric I’ve heard before. Much is assumed. For example, I don’t see how an “elitism of people” is a consequence of “an egalitarianism of ideas”. Please explain.



Clemsy


Guest

Post by Guest »

Hi Clemsy,



I will be glad to answer you, although like Barry I suspect we may end up with a Gordian knot between our answers and of our perceived truths!



I have a quote here from Viktor Frankel: “If we present Man with a concept of man that is not true, we may well corrupt him […] If we do that we will feed the nihilism to which the modern man is, in any case, prone.”



And from The Masks of God: Creative Mythology, where Joseph Campbell asserts that those societies whose symbols cease to have authority, “there follows inevitably a sense of both disassociation from the local social nexus and of quest.”



In the past 100 years atheistic philosophy has migrated into our social theories to the extent that now good and evil, right and wrong have been trivialized. To loosely paraphrase the atheist Hobart Mauer “we liberated ourselves from sin and called it sickness”. We have achieved in creating an amoral, ethically neutral and pluralized state in the name of personal freedom. When I wrote before about the elitism of ideas, I meant the delineation of ideas between those that are better, lesser, right, or wrong – the superior idea versus the inferior idea. The egalitarianism of ideas means essentially the equality of all ideas; whether one privately infers meaning to them or not is immaterial and irrelevant. Consequently there is a fundamental loss of meaning, both as a society and as an individual, in those ideas by which we form our actions, our standards, our moral makeup and our ethics. The elitism of people is a derivative of this change of affairs insofar as now we each regard our personal truths and ideas as supreme, irregardless of whether or not they are based on superior or inferior ideas. We slap slogans without substance on our lives, and hope for the best. We speak in clichés and pursue our own desires. We in effect become our own little gods, all inherently good - and we have admitted as much.



That’s all I meant by the rhetoric, if indeed it is. Was I pointing a finger here as in ‘here’? No, but I was disturbed that after Liam’s heart felt posting there gathered a crowd of well meaning onlookers who all had something ‘warm and fuzzy’ to say, but lacked any real substance and for that matter, never bothered to investigate his questions. Instead we had a strange hortatory about new creations and being better for it, walking around in a mythological dark forest of the world, surgery on Jesus, (ignore him, use the rest), and the proclamation that we are all Gods, except we’re missing the steering wheel. Among that I did appreciate the honesty of one writer who explained how he went fishing with his son as a means of healing after 911. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”, so says Proverbs. Of all the Centers, and Ultimate Beings of Reality, and Denuded Jesus’s that I read here, I wonder if there is any fear if we have already trivialized it by sloganeering through our self-deified lives?



Now I have three questions for you! Firstly, what exactly do you mean by the “many assumptions” I have used and of which you have heard many times. Please qualify. Secondly, I would like to know why you make the assumption that all the stories Liam has heard are valid. Thirdly, what do you think Joseph Campbell’s observations would have been regarding 911? Does the nature of this event correlate with something else resident in the heart of man… perhaps if I may, the dark forest of humanity?



Blessings,

Ken


Barry Stephens
Associate
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:00 am
Location: Dallas, Texas

Post by Barry Stephens »

Hello All!







This forum is "Who or What is God"? Right? Since this is on an open Website, the answers to this question are going to run the gamut, from "Each one of us is god", to "there is only ONE god and MY God is it!" In my humble opinion, we each need to take a step back and have respect for each other's views, without proselytizing. While I understand that many religious faiths require their adherents to "spread the word" and convert as many people as they can to their religion, I do not feel that THIS is the place to do that.







As far as what to I think Professor Campbell would have though about 9/11:







I think he would have grieved for the tremendous loss of life. I think he would have been hurt by the loss of a visible landmark of New York, a city he called home most of his life. I do not think Campbell would have attributed ANY part of that to an act of God (either the Judeo-Christian or Muslim version). Based on his writings, lectures, and journal entries (cited in A Fire in the Mind), it seems that Mr. Campbell's beliefs, if you could call them "religious" were closer in keeping with the Eastern traditions (Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto) than with Christianity. I think it would be quite presumptuous of us to assume what he would have FELT, but, based on what we DO know of him, I don't think he would have thought the events of September 11, 2001 had ANYTHING to do with ANY God!!







Mindfully,







Barry



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Barry Stephens on 2002-07-14 12:46 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: barry stephens on 2002-07-24 07:33 ]</font>

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Ken,



Atheistic philosophy? I don’t know about that. The current spiritual malaise is the child of many parents. Sophistry is certainly king today. What is Truth? Why, truth belongs to whoever can argue ones point better than another, says he cynically. Truth belongs to the persuasive. (So, perhaps we should all watch ourselves, eh?) Lawyers and politicians of every persuasion indulge in this behavior. I believe this has infected our culture, quite seriously. Is this the fault of atheistic philosophy? I don’t think so. Sophistry has always been the devil in the corner. Perhaps religious doctrine just couldn’t, or wouldn’t, keep up with an evolving, modern society and sophistry simply filled the vacuum for want of any new vision. Atheism? Atheism does not equal moral decay. That it does is one assumption I reject, utterly.



Some Christian rhetoric condemns as moral relativists anyone who dares make up their own minds about ‘Ultimate Truth’. How easy to minimize and dismiss through categorization. I have spent my life gathering wisdom from where ever I can find it. I have built a solid philosophical foundation for my world as I experience it. The cement for this foundation is Reason. I have my view of god… mine. Does biblical doctrine hold the key to morality? Which interpretation? One local congregation is forbidden by the pastor to attend my wife’s childbirth classes. Why? Because she promotes on demand breastfeeding. This church indoctrinates parents into setting infants on a strict schedule instantly so as to bring their little egos into line. I’m sure they have a biblical interpretation to justify this. On my morality scale, based on what I know, that rates as child abuse. So, yes: An individual, on his or her own, through patience, open eyes and ears and respect for others, very definitely can build a personal morality built on Reason. This is one of the “Truths” Campbell discussed as critical for our age. He also stated that Reason is that in human nature which differentiates us from animals and plants. We must be true to our nature (Reason) for to do otherwise would be an affront to god.



Does the Bible contain moral truths? Of course it does. Are there moral truths to be found elsewhere? Of course there are.



Liam doesn’t need you to defend him. I’m sure he can speak for himself. Those who contribute to these discussions are very thoughtful and intelligent people. You say that the responses to Liam “lacked real substance”. Very, very judgmental of you. You might have prefaced this statement with an “in my opinion”, or do you consider this comment to be indicative of an empirical truth?


Firstly, what exactly do you mean by the “many assumptions” I have used and of which you have heard many times.
Come now. There are assumptions inherent in any argument. You don’t need me to delineate the assumptions inherent in your own argument. Wouldn’t be appropriate now would it? I could be wrong… which is why I asked you to clarify. However, I found your response interesting. Can’t say I agree with your ‘egalitarianism of ideas’ argument, though.



The stories I told Liam were still valid? I was referring to the stories in the Bible.



Campbell’s observations about 9/11? I would be very uncomfortable answering that question here. David Kudler is far more qualified than I. David?



No Gordian knots here, Ken. Every perspective has its point on the Great Wheel. Of course, one point is to deny the wheel and accept only a straight line… one spoke to the axis. By and large the associates here are sharing and finding.



We are somewhat off topic here. Ken, why don't you start a dedicated thread if you are interested in sharing and finding. Pick a topic. Start a discussion. This one belongs to views on god.



Clemsy


Guest

Post by Guest »

Hi Clemsy,



It appears that I have a hit a nerve with you and I can just see you thinking, ‘Oh no, he’s writing back! Won’t he ever give up?’ Well, I will but allow me a few observations regarding your post. Then depending on how you feel, I’ll just leave it alone. We have been all guilty of navel gazing here.



I would agree sophistry is an ingredient, especially ours here in the west where it has become so litigious. As for atheist theory, I don’t think my argument predicated B with A, but nevertheless I do see with difficulty how atheist theory isn’t a contributor to moral decay. Or great abuses – just examine the 20th century with the zenith of bloodshed by Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and so far. Someone will say, that is not atheist theory! Yes, but they and the machinations they had in place were shaped by it. Also, if you don’t agree with my egalitarianism of ideas, elitism of people, then tell me why! Debate is meant to educate too you know.



Well, I’ve heard of foolish pastors, but yours takes the cake! I can see how this doesn’t lend much credibility to the makeup of my argument when ‘spiritual luddites’ like him are afoot. But I’ve seen a few too. One pastor I knew ended up seducing his youth group and left his wife and children for a girl nearly 20 years his junior. But Clemsy, that is an unfair insertion to make in your argument about the key to morality; you ought to know that this is an exception and nowhere can be found in the bible. And for that matter among most believers.



You are very right about reason, and I don’t see why it is assumed that Christianity discourages this. I think that there is a lack of intellectual rigor in Christian circles, and perhaps this sometimes lends to that notion. Also, I asked that question in honesty about Joseph Campbell. There is no agenda here, but I think I rashly asked it out of context to the tone of this debate. Would it help if I had never revealed myself to be a Christian? I often find these debates become vitriolic as soon as this is known, regardless of the position taken up before. I think if I have argued here that Jesus was actually a bodhisattva, but everything else remained equal, that the tone of the responses here would be somewhat different. But that is only my opinion based on previous observations.



Lastly, you are right about there being any assumptions in a given argument, but in re-reading your last post and reading this one now, it seems you are adamant in holding the higher ground here. I was glad though that some of the obvious assumptions I did make did not filter to you back to me. Like, for example, why ever should I presume there to be a Personal God in the first place? And why do I presume he wants anything to do with me. Those weren’t my arguments, but those of a good friend, a Buddhist, who teaches here in Montreal. And I do believe in Him, and no, I do not believe He can be reached with just any name. Otherwise we have to question God’s sanity in Christianity, and examine what Jesus declared about himself in the bible. As CS Lewis would argue, was Jesus a fool, a liar or what he said he was? And of course that becomes a matter of a personal and individual decision.



So why are we off topic? After all, isn’t this forum called ‘Who or What is God?’



Blessings!



Ken


Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Ken,



Time simply doesn’t allow for detailed argument, unfortunately. However, a few points to end… Please respond as you will.



Yes the great 20th century genocidal maniacs were atheists who, incidentally, clothed themselves in the trappings of religion. However, previous centuries boast their own madmen who weren’t so secular. Extremism is the issue here. Religious extremism can be (and has been) just as dangerous. Of course, there are a few interesting examples in the Old Testament…



Unfortunately, the allusion I made to the kooky ministry is not unfair for it is not much of an exception. This church, one of the Baptist sects, is not a singularity even if it is a minority. Besides, the point is there is much disagreement between Christians on Biblical interpretations; so labeling everyone outside the Christian boundary moral relativists is disingenuous at best.



Hey Ken, no problem with you being a Christian. Vitriol may be expressed here and there as a response to judgmental or patronizing comments, but not to your religious orientation. The gentleman who started this discussion is Catholic. His presence on these boards was very enjoyable.



No, no. I’m not playing king of the hill here. Any person’s view of god is just as valid as mine or any one else’s as far as I’m concerned.



Peace,

Clemsy


ALOberhoulser
Associate
Posts: 2952
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 6:00 am
Location: Delphi
Contact:

Post by ALOberhoulser »

Clemsy,

You seem to be elevating to new heights of tolerance my friend. It is quite a shame the insiders look out more often than they look within when it comes to religion in the general sense.



I wanted to comment on the section put forth by Ken:
It is, in a sense, a mulligan stew; add a little buddhism here where it is appealing, a little christianity there where sin and guilt are not concerned, some culture, now here mythos and, presto, we have created our own salvation plan.


A salvation plan? How about a tolerant outlook on the world. All of us are not fortunate enough to live in Ivory Towers, where one can look down on the rest of humanity, and it's everyday existence. I'm not even going to comment further on this notion that we, collectively here, are making up our own plan for salvation. That sounds like a Mormon statement to me, one built on the foundations of Freemasonry.



I admire the elements of debate, but if the notion of God relies on a plan for salvation, then I will take reason and the quest for emperical truths as my plan.



Peace,

AL

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Al,



The need for salvation assumes the validity of the Fall of Man. I, personally, do not accept the Fall of Man. Didn't want to stress too many points in my discussion with Ken, so I let the salvation comment ride. No time! However, I would ask Ken for his understanding of an Immanent vs. Personal god.



Clemsy

Guest

Post by Guest »

Hi Clemsy,



Immanence is pantheism, or sometimes referred to as divine immanence, and is usually opposite of classical theism.



A Personal God, using the same prescibed method, would be... Panentheism, as Krause saw it. As for me, it is a God who is omnipotent, omniscience, but as the Creator takes an interest in His creation. Simple but worth limitless volumes I suppose. God is in Himself a mystery, "My thoughts aren't your thoughts, My ways not your ways." So when you say Personal, you are asking a broader question than say, what is a God of Monotheism, or more specifically, of classical theism. In that who can say? Not even the Baptists I'm sure!



What do you see it as? As for Al's interpolation on the term salvation, you are right by what I meant - it can also be seen as Justification, or Propiation if taken in an internal sense. I am not at all sure where mormonism or freemasonary enters here...



Blessings,

Ken

ALOberhoulser
Associate
Posts: 2952
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 6:00 am
Location: Delphi
Contact:

Post by ALOberhoulser »


I'll let the professionals speak on this a bit here, if anyone has the time.



Religious pluralism seems to be the trend these days. Another popular notion I am relieved to find is the theory of the biological origins of religious experience. (I still can't find anyone who fully supports my view of the lymphatic system's role, but the reaserch is highly sensitive)



http://www.alisterhardytrust.org.uk/A_H ... hardy.html



If you visit the above link, please look at the distinguished members.

Tree Hugger would have LOVED that link! :grin:



AL




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ALOberhoulser on 2002-10-21 18:53 ]</font>

Pergamum
Associate
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2002 5:00 am

Post by Pergamum »

Everyone,

I was surprised and mystified by Cadfael's departure, especially with his ending remark that we will find our peace through Jesus Christ. Intrigued by that, I searched through the rest of the threads to see where else Cadfael contributed to get a better understanding of his position.

Then I came upon this thread. Very interesting indeed! 'Ken', are you still with us?

It seems he got in the last word regarding this debate. Anyone agree/disagree? Wherever you stand on religion, it appears that there were some fascinating insights made here that were not - shall we say - hotly disseminated.

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Hi Pergamum,

Interestingly, the associate who started this conversation, Christopher, is posting again after a substantial hiatus. I was wondering if this thread would become active again.

Actually, I remember being disappointed by Ken’s answer. It is a standard Christian response to dismiss divine immanence as pantheism. I, personally, consider any labeling of divinity self-defeating. Labels are defined. Definitions require parameters… and there we are in ‘this, not that’ territory. Can God be so confined?

However, in Occidental Mythology, Campbell contrasts the Indian ideal of Karmic Yoga and the “condition of nirvâna, disengagement in trance rapture” with “the Greek ideal of ataraxia, the rational mind undisturbed by pleasure and pain”. “Yet,” he says,
between the two views there is much to be compared, and particularly their grounding in what Christian scholars like to call “pantheism,” which is fundamental both to the Orient—whether India or the Far east—and to the Classical world: against which the biblical view, whether in Jewish, Christian, or Islamic thought, stands in unrelenting, even belligerent, argument.
Such would I have replied to Ken. I seem to remember Campbell somewhere denying pantheism as a viable definition for immanence. Anyone know the reference?

Clemsy


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: clemsy on 2002-10-20 19:03 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: clemsy on 2002-10-20 19:12 ]</font>

Ken
Associate
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 6:00 am

Post by Ken »

Hi Pergamum,

It's nice to be missed! I have been away for awhile, but returned out of curiousity - I see now that one has to join in order to place a post.

I was having fun with these posts, but grew a little wary after it appeared that no one, except for maybe Clemsy, was actually reading and rationally responding to them. Much of what what was being debated seemed to revolve around a genuine dislike of Christianity in any form it takes.

Hi Clemsy: I can't even remember how we came to this point about divine immanence, but why is this the usual 'stock in trade' answer from Christians? Have you spent much time in the church debating?

Blessings,

Ken

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Well Ken, I get around... hear a little here, read a little there and yeah, that's the impression I get.

Welcome back.

Clemsy

Locked