For The Love Of God

.

So what’s going on then? Every attempt at defining God as a Being has tanked. Is there a reason for this?

Yes.

It’s because we don’t know what we’re talking about.
We won’t admit it but that’s what’s going on.

This is not about the existence of God, this is about our concepts of God, our very human concepts of God. This is about those who claim to know that which is way beyond our ability to know, and about those who are willing to kill anyone who disagrees. It is about pompous claims of righteousness that are simply not deserved (as if ever). It is about those who assume the mantle of moral authority who claim to be driven by “calling” when it is so painfully obvious that they are driven by fear, vanity or both.

Those who claim to know are eventually asked questions and, because they don’t really know, they get caught up in what they have not taken into account. When that happens they don’t say, “Well, you see, I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about”, of course, it’s that “God works in mysterious ways” (as if they knew how God does anything), or some other form of smoke blowing. We’ve been blowing smoke for so long, we forgot what it’s like to see. We’ve been describing what we think God must be like for so long, we forget that we have no idea. We’ve been pretending we know for so long we forgot what it is to learn.


Man’s concept of God was preceded by the development of his ability to abstract. Man’s concept of anything was preceded by the development of his ability to abstract. I also think it’s possible that man’s ability to abstract came as quite a surprise. It might even be said that we discovered abstraction and projectile defecation in the same instant.

“What the _(TBA)_ was that!!! Aw crap, I messed my loin cloth…oh, new word…hey everybody…I just called it ‘crap’! Is that good with everybody? Okay, ‘crap’ it is.”

The first people were not dumb but we were just getting started…learning that is. All we knew well was how to survive. So after the hunt and subsequent feasting you might have found yourself outside the cave, gazing at the wilderness before you, remembering the hunt, the lightning, and Gark, poor guy (see: lightning), when you started to wonder a silent version of “What the hell is going on?”

Our intellect was awakening, but the development of language is what will give it wings.  Although the potential of a spoken language was not yet fully realized, we had developed some remarkable abilities of abstraction as indicated by this find:

We were able to generate likenesses from memory.  These paintings suggest that our ability to abstract was beyond the beginner stage at this time.  Further evidence of our ability to abstract, which I find rather interesting to ponder, are the hand stencils:

 It’s easy to understand how we might have been motivated to paint the animals that were part of our lives, and scenes from the hunt, which must have been quite impressive, if not terrifying, for a first timer.  In contemplating the hand stencils, however, I pause.  What were we thinking when we came up with this idea.  Renderings of humans in these paintings, for some reason, are done with no where near the ability shown in the animal paintings, so the hand stencils are particularly curious to me.  Some theorize that they are a form of signature.  Because of the uniqueness of the human hand, this may simply be an indication of human presence, making ourselves known, for those who would come after us.  “Posterity” is pretty abstract.

 Here’s a more recent “cave painting” of ours which is racing through the universe presently:



The “Pioneer Plaque"

[Notice the prominence of the hand.]


This also suggests that there was at least an ad practicum understanding of modus ponens (“if/then” logic):

     If my father’s father died and later my father, then I will die and my children will take my place, etc.

It’s possible that our present concept of God came into view because of the application of modus ponens as well:

     If we didn’t make this world, then who did?

Lightning, tornadoes, floods, etc, are very powerful and we had nothing to do with creating them let alone the world they were happening in, so who did? As no one could match the powers of these things, nor could anyone demonstrate control of any of them, describing god took over and response to fear was our motivation and guide. Eventually, our concept needed a voice. Early practitioners of the “gift of gab” saw this need and potential, and were quick to talk themselves into a position to be declared the high priests & priestesses whose responsibility it was to speak for our concept of god, I mean, be someone that the gods could speak through. A king (also gab-gifted) was chosen to rule the military, collect taxes, and enforce the whims of that system’s beneficiaries and from this a social order grew. Because there was an organized effort, survival was a little easier, but other problems began to evolve.


So the serfs were beholding to the land owners (sub-tenants, actually), land owners to nobility (tenants of the King, actually), nobility to the Crown, the Crown to the church, and the church to god. But god is being defined by the priests and priestesses… “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” because if you did mention the “man behind the curtain” you would be uncorking a flagon of “The Mist of Ass Whoop Forest” on yourself.

•

Asking “who” created the universe assumes that the universe was created by a “who”, a being, a Supreme Being perhaps, but an entity separate from the rest of the universe in any case. This may reflect more our desire to translate everything to our level of understanding, thus limiting God to our human abilities and foibles as well. It has no basis in fact. It’s just us saying so.


This leads us to portraying God with our very human palette of emotions, particularly anger. For example, I was taught that when God looked down(?) on Sodom and Gomorra, He was angered. Why! He knew at the beginning of time what He was going to see when He looked “down”. He created the world in which Sodom and Gomorra evolved, with His full knowledge. In fact, Sodom and Gomorra was His idea as was/is everything else.


•

Out of this confusion comes two styles of God from which to choose. There’s the God that is define intellectually, but lacks any evidence. This God is subliminally the placeholder for a more accurate God who has yet to reveal Him/Herself, that we have yet to understand because of our preoccupation with fear and/or vanity, and the fact that we are clueless, a condition brought on by being tossed out of Eden perhaps…at least I would think there would be consequences of being tossed out of Eden, yes? It is interesting that the people preoccupied with fear and/or vanity are the ones most eager to describe God for everyone else, and are the most likely to try to skip over the trouble spots as if they were doing God a favor.

For others, defining God is to kill God. Definitions are, by definition, defining. As no one knows the mind of God, on what are we going to base our definitions…a good book? Written by whom? Written for whom? No sir. Give me the God of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, because what I know of these powers is that they reach way beyond my abilities. As I contemplate what I consider the mind of God to be like, this seems to be as it should be. No one knows the mind of God. Not you, not me, not the Pope, not the evangelists, not the fundamentalists of any religion, no one.

•


Then there’s the issue of worship and praise. These concepts appeal to egos only. God doesn’t want or need either. By the Church’s own definition, God is complete, He is in want of nothing. Add to that the fact that worship and praise do nothing. They do not cure disease, feed the hungry, educate, create, invent…nothing. It may inflate an ego to the point of becoming maniacal but that’s about it.


However, if you really have a thing for worship and praise, I have read descriptions of Satan that suggest he’s heavy into worship and praise. In fact, that seems to be all he’s into. That’s kind of interesting; God wants us to love one another, and Satan wants worship and praise.

•

And why do we speak of God in the vernacular common during the time of Feudal rule…with the “lords” and “ladies” and “king” and “God’s court” and your “highness” (yeah, somebody’s trippin’ alright). We’re making Him out to be a dick like we are, forcing concepts like God to match our limited understanding of reality. Our concept of God is locked in a Feudal mindset as in “God is King”…why? What if in the presence of God all senses of class, social order, favoritism, etc, vanish and for the first time you actually feel a sense of completion, what real friendship is, of being completely accepted. There really is no sense to try to stuff God into a “King” scenario when what God really is might be many, many, many times better.


From what I can gather, God wants us to share in this awesome, fantastic, wondrous universe. To help each other develop our abilities and voice, to learn how to appreciate and participate in the unfolding universe. For us to peer into limitless dimensions is for us to peer into the mind of God. We will fail to understand it completely or barely for that matter, but we will understand why no one can speak for God.

•

Some of us practicing traditional religions disregard the socio-political considerations because they see God as the embodiment of the highest aspirations afforded to human kind. These people are caring for the sick, giving comfort and aid to those whom life has beaten down, getting in harms way to stop abuse, and some being killed in the effort. From some of the reports I’ve heard from missionaries and relief workers, reports from “in the trenches”, it’s that they are so busy there is no time to preach. The only message they can give is that there are people, not from this hell, who came to this hell to help…and worked themselves to exhaustion and sometimes to death for no other reason than compassion. This is worthy of a real God.


•

There are many groups who believe there is only one true God, and each camp thinks that the one true God is their true God, so somebody has to die, right? (ooo, muy macho). That, however, depends on the filter through which one chooses to view the world. When we look at the same scene through, let’s call it a “unification” filter, we may come to the conclusion that there is indeed one true God and He chose to address each culture in a way that best suited the evolution of that culture. But in each culture those responsible for speaking for God used their position to add elements that are obviously of human origin, not of God. If what you are really seeking is world domination, you write that crap in there, if you have a thing for controlling the behavior of others, stink the place up with that…who’s going to know? If one of these guys had been heavily jilted by a woman, he could write in a stanza or two to exact revenge, I mean, institutionalize what he feels is right and proper treatment. For example, at one time in Christianity, women were considered closer to Satan because they made men want to have sex with them…geez Louise, I’m just not from around here.



•





La Madeleine, Paris

 There is an understanding in logic that may serve to stow emotional worries so one can be at ease in breaking lockstep with any specific school of thought: If God is the truth, then seek the truth.

If the temple is to stand, we must be honest about what we know, what we feel, who we are and know our limitations. Truth is not served by filling the logical space with political gods, maniacal ego tripping gods, false passion, disguising greed as the new “holy” or any other form of mindlessness. Apparently, God is not going to correct our view of Him. This means the accuracy of our understanding of God is totally in our hands. If we keep getting it wrong, we will remain exiled from Eden.



Interior, La Madeleine


God is the omnipotence, He is the power of the universe. He has never, does not now, or will He ever need our help with anything. None of us have ever been, are not now, nor will we ever be God’s little helpers.


If one thinks that by accumulating brownie points by going through the motions is how you enter the kingdom of God, may I recommend a change of filter?

“See me doing good acts?” does not further your understanding of yourself, and consequently does nothing to bring you any closer to God. But the more you understand about life, your sense of self changes, as does your concept of the world you live in. It becomes less about “you” and more about with what you are involved. Instead of pretending to teach, you find yourself wanting to learn more, see how other cultures handled life’s situations. One’s tears, one’s laughter seem more genuine as well.

•





Don’t get me wrong, I do not exclude myself from these mindset problems. I have my own whacked-out ideas. For example, I don’t think Jesus died for our sins. I mean when I look at His case from what I know of people today, I think the money-changers bought the government’s ear, had “treason” charges brought up on Jesus in revenge for Him tumbling their gig in the temples. They promised the king a slice of the “temple” action if the king would dust “little goody two-sandals” over there. Later, when the gaping lack of wisdom of dusting Jesus started to show itself, the money-changers started to panic. If J C’s posse finds out that the money-changers were responsible, the money-changers would be the featured guests at a freak fry for sure. So they had to come up with something quick to the question why did Jesus have to die?

“Uh…um…’cause..uh…He had to…uh…[make it their fault, somehow…abusers always make the victims think it’s their fault]…Yeah, He had to die…uh to take away your sins…Yeah, that’s it…You did it with your sinful ways...

Meanwhile, I have Jesus witnessing all this saying,

“I will return when you people can demonstrate that you have understood what I was saying and treat each other as I have treated you…and stop trying to fool Me because I know, I’m Jesus…dig?” [I get my “slang” from Him, ya know]

“Only when you take My teachings to heart will I return. No war, no great battle between Good and Evil for your ego’s entertainment, or any other distraction…this is your direct responsibility…only when each one of you understand what it means to care for one another, only then will I return.”

You see? I’m nuts! But I’m not a problem because I’m not teaching my fix as God’s truth; I’m just playing with concepts like everybody else.




• • •