Don: The fundamental questions of humankind are about Creation (Where did we come from?) Revelation (Where are we?) and Salvation (or Re-creation) (Where are we going?). Since the Creation was before our time, and Salvation/re-creation will be after our time, what we can “know” about them can only be through faith. Revelation, however, occurs in front of our very eyes and can be examined directly.
Last week Charles asked whether it was possible to know god and if so how? Could it be through human reason and intelligence? If not, is god knowable by some other method? Paul addresses this question in 1 Corinthians 2:2-12:
For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; but just as it is written,
“Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard,
And which have not entered the heart of man,
All that God has prepared for those who love Him.”
For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,…
The history of mankind, especially the spiritual history, is replete with a myriad ways in which god has revealed himself. The bible has story after story of god in revelation: A burning bush that talks, a talking donkey, pillars of fire, earthquakes, storms, ravens that bring food, a giant fish that swallows a prophet, whirlwinds, thunder and lightning, and so on. But there is one revelation that is different: It is the god of the still, small voice in 1 Kings 19:9-13:
Then he came there to a cave and lodged there; and behold, the word of the Lord came to him, and He said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?” [Don: Note that, as usual when he talks directly to man, the first thing out of god’s mouth is a question.] He said, “I have been very zealous for the Lord, the God of hosts; for the sons of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars and killed Your prophets with the sword. And I alone am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.”
So He said, “Go forth and stand on the mountain before the Lord.” And behold, the Lord was passing by! And a great and strong wind was rending the mountains and breaking in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind. And after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a sound of a gentle blowing. When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood in the entrance of the cave. And behold, a voice came to him and said, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”
Think of this revelation from Elijah’s point of view: He had just [1 Kings 18] seen a dramatic demonstration/revelation of god’s power when god came down as fire of such overwhelming power as to consume a waterlogged altar, so he was understandably confused when—despite having a dramatic hurricane, earthquake, and fire conveniently at hand—god intentionally chose to appear as just a still, small voice. The intention was to show Elijah—and us—that god is not predictable in any way, shape or form; that we cannot put god in a box.
The Creation and the Salvation are two ends of a historical spectrum of time. We cannot “know” their reality except through faith. But Revelation is here and now, and it seems to me we each have some personal inkling concerning it. I am beginning to think that revelation is an unique experience for each of us; that it leaves a different fingerprint on each of our souls. To put it another way: The revelation is part of the “spiritual DNA” with which the creator has endowed us. DNA is made up of an almost but not quite identical order of components. The natural minor differences in our DNA makeup is further influenced by “epigenetic” (essentially, environmental) factors. In this analogy, our spiritual DNA is eventually “transcribed” into spiritual proteins that form the basis of our individually unique traits and behaviors—including our individual relationship with god.
This brings us back to the question: Why does god have so many religions, and why do so many appear to be conflicting, contradictory? Religions are like language in that we are born into them and they color our beliefs if we change them, just as our native language or mother tongue colors our speech when we try to use a foreign language. We are raised through our language and our religion, taught through them, and become socialized through them. It is possible to learn another religion just as it is possible to learn another language, but although there are some exceptions, most of us tend to speak a foreign language with at least an accent. Is the same true if we adopt a different religion? Can we see a new revelation of god, afforded by the new religion, uncolored (unaccented) by the revelation received from the old religion? Do we benefit from receiving more than one revelation? If there were no benefit from it, would god not have decreed a unified religion for all time and places? Since god clearly has not done that, surely there is some benefit even from contradictory revelations of god—to god, or to us?
David: To the fanatics who just slaughtered 12 journalists at a Paris newspaper for having published cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohamed, god revealed himself through that prophet and recited the Koran to him. (And by the way, I have since read that the Koran itself—the Word of god according to Moslems—does not prohibit images of Mohamed.) Christians, on the other hand, claim that god revealed his Word through Jesus. So here’s a major contradiction: God revealed through Mohamed and the Koran vs. through Jesus and the bible. But there is at least one key commonality shared between the Koran and bible: They both reveal a kind, loving, and merciful god, which I find encouraging as a sign of common humanity; but to me it is extremely disturbing that both the Koran and the bible’s Old Testament also reveal an inhuman, cruel, vengeful, and violent god.
It is precisely this kind of commonality—far more so than the contradictions—that leads me to believe that both the Koran and the bible are the words of men, not of god, except to the extent that the men were perhaps influenced occasionally (such as when speaking of a kind, loving, and merciful god) by the Inner Light—which I believe to be the real Word of god that dwells in every man and woman. The Inner Light is the spiritual chromosome containing our spiritual DNA. That is to me the only valid source of the still, small voice of god.
If religion is like language, the messages we are getting about god from the Abrahamic religions ultimately do convey common meaning; however, the meaning is often contradictory within the religions themselves and, to me, it lacks the validity that comes when spiritual meaning emerges from our individual hearts—our Inner Light—even though our hearts may resonate with some aspects of what the religions profess. The words of Jesus as reported in the New Testament resonate for me, but I believe the words are already there, inside, anyway, even though they can only be felt, not seen or heard. Language is a cultural phenomenon, not a spiritual one; and so (in my opinion) is religion—or no religion. Even in cultures with no religion, spirituality and goodness can be just as (or more) evident as in religious cultures, because god is in the individual’s DNA.
Michael: The notion of a platonic, kind and loving god seems to be primarily a Christian idea. But even Jesus said (Matthew 10:34):
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
And as for the prophets: Perhaps they were just trying to translate what their Inner Lights revealed to them.
Robin: Exodus 14:13:
But Moses said to the people, “Do not fear! Stand by and see the salvation of the Lord which He will accomplish for you today; …”
I think there are other instances like this where god does things without instructing people to slaughter one another. There are times when he says to leave things to him. But it’s true and troublesome that the Old Testament in particular does also show a violent side to god.
Kiran: In quantum physics, the instant we observe a subatomic particle, it changes—so did we really see it? How could we? So it may be with god. Jesus’ words to the effect that if you have seen him (Jesus) you have seen god contradict the Old Testament notion that god can be seen as a fire or an earthquake, etc. Our fear is that he will not reveal himself to us because we have too much sin—we feel guilty.
Robin: God told Jonah to journey to wicked Nineveh and await instructions. But Jonah disobeyed and told the Ninevites they were in for it, without waiting for god’s instructions.
Pat: It’s no surprise that revelation is different from person to person. God created such diversity that if the revelation were not different it would mean we could all see all of god. We each receive small pieces of the puzzle that we can handle. I think we each have a spiritual blank slate that can be accessed through meditation; a point where self, culture, and all the other debris we bring to our faith can be wiped clean, at least for a moment. But there is a lot of personal ambition and sin that we then layer over it, and we call the result “faith” and we even write it down as scripture that then gets transmitted. When we read scripture of any religion, including our own, it seems to me very important to be aware that the humans who have transmitted their faiths may also have inserted their own values and issues into the scriptures and represented god in a way that is not true.
Don: Does this then mean that having a “correct” view of god is of no consequence to god? In that case, the notion that we must unrelentingly strive after god would seem almost silly, from god’s point of view. Maybe the capital T Truth about god has little to do with facts.
Kiran: John 1:5 says that Jesus (“the light”) was in the world but “the darkness” did not “comprehend” it. So it seems important that we at least try to comprehend it—that we strive to reach god. The question reverts to one of perception: Whether we see god as a fire or a still small voice or an inner light, we have to remain perceptive, ready to comprehend the voice of god in whatever form it takes.
Michael: I agree that from god’s point of view, our drive to find the truth about him is not important. But to me, it is important. I don’t understand why.
Charles: My Catholic background and belief in an absolute Truth obviously color my perspectives, but I do believe that the ultimate cause for conditional reality is an infinite God beyond the capacity of human reason and intelligence to fully “comprehend”. A God whose “thoughts are above our thoughts and ways are above our ways”. We may approach God, but something beyond human reason and intelligence alone is necessary to know God. I believe the something is the gift of the Spirit as suggested in the reading from St. Paul and that individual process of revelation is in fact our spiritual journey. The desire to know God may indeed be hardwired into our DNA and perhaps not strictly in a spiritual sense. It is actually helpful to my own spiritual journey that the human component of Creation and the story of Salvation constitute but a small fraction of a timeless and infinite whole, an infinite Creation that can only play out on God’s terms and will never be fully understandable to human beings on a purely rational or intellectual basis.
The continuing conundrum of how to deal with a human history that begins with God as Creator and with humanity in unity with God (The Garden); followed by a fall by humanity from complete dependence upon and unity with God; followed by attempts by God to reconcile humanity through prophets and angels and demonstrations of “impossible” power in the Old Testament and then ultimately of God becoming human and dying on our behalf only to be risen from the dead (the “ultimate” example of impossible power from a purely rational and human perspective) and then a journey to gather back all peoples through the Spirit of God and His Church. It is a process of Revelation and Salvation to be completed “in the fullness of time”.
This linear story of Salvation history seems to me to be appropriate given our human historical context and assuming some forward march of human progress and rational intelligence over time. And therefore for me, such a linear historical context helps me to deal with my own struggle between the concept of a merciful God for all peoples and a path to Salvation for all through his Son, versus the fact that not everybody had or has access to knowledge of the Son. This conundrum is somewhat resolved for me if Jesus is with “us” from the beginning of Creation and through to “the end of the age”. This I take to mean that the process of Salvation will come to completion for all humanity and that we are in a sense free to interpret it in our terms, provided our choices and actions are consistent with God’s will.
So, who is to say that an infinite God is not free to account for that fact that those who were around when Jesus was on earth and had direct access to him and those who had indirect access to revelation through the Spirit and/or his Church, and those who had no access at all but nevertheless lived their lives in a manner consistent with the will of god could not have access to salvation and a place in the Kingdom of God. It seems to me that none of this is inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus. For even on the cross, Jesus granted entry to the kingdom to a criminal being crucified along side and presumably after a life of sin. God’s ways are not our ways.
So the concepts of linear time, of the “fullness of time”, of god’s ways not being man’s ways, and of an allowance for salvation for those who have no opportunity to know Jesus, all seem to be both possible and in a sense related. There may be simply a different set of rules and expectations for those who have access to revelation through Christ and for those who did not have access to Christ in our human terms. God’s ways are not our ways.
I find it fascinating that, as opposed to all the folks who have waited throughout history for the Second Coming—for the End of the Age—it is still the case that the Word has not reached everyone on earth. Perhaps the End of the Age will be when it has reached everyone. Perhaps everyone will have access to the Word “in the fullness of time”. Parenthetically, it is interesting that with the ubiquity of modern communication technologies humanity is fast approaching a point everyone can have access to the Word. So stay tuned… the Kingdom of God may be “at hand”.
David: How we treat one another seems the single most important key to salvation from Jesus’ perspective. He judges us solely on this basis. In this room today, there are Catholics, Adventists, an Episcopalian, and a sort-of Daoist. I believe that if all of us were to abandon our religious beliefs tomorrow, we would still treat strangers, our families, and each other the same as we have always done. If we had all been born into non-religious families, would we have grown up to be monsters? I don’t think so. I think who we are and how we treat others is in our genes and our family and educational backgrounds and socioeconomic circumstances, but at best who we really are is manifested only marginally through our religious beliefs.
God is the god of all mankind because he (she, it) is just there, inside us, come what religion may.
Charles: I agree there is some hardwired sense of right and wrong—of conscience—in our spiritual DNA. To the extent our behavior is consistent with that, good; but absent the guidelines provided by religion, we tend to get messed up, and I think history shows that monotheistic societies have been better behaved than pantheistic or atheistic societies. From my Catholic perspective, rightly or wrongly, there is a sense of comfort from having religious rules and guidelines.
Jay: This is in a way a nature vs. nurture debate. The nature argument is that god is in our DNA and we are programmed to be connected to our Inner Light; the nurture argument is that we are surrounded by our language, culture, religion and so on and that these shape our view of god. Is one of the arguments right and the other wrong, or are both partially right? If so, is one more influential than the other? Is god using both of them to connect with us? I too believe in the power of the Inner Light to draw us toward god, but I also think there are positive aspects to nurture and that god uses those also to bring us into relationship with him.
Don: We’ve had a lot of Skype problems today. We will try to get them resolved by next week.
* * *
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.