The God Box

A question I usually confront myself with when assessing my religious views is, “What is my God box?” What is a God box? A God box is an individual’s current image of God and everything that God is.  For instance, a simple example would be a God in a toga, who looks like Zeus and lounges on top of a cloud throwing lightning bolts. This God answers your prayers and controls every facet of the universe. Many of us have shared this God box before.  Another God box would be “God is Love”.  In this image, God is more than just a concrete being. He transcends reality and becomes a concept as well. Depending on how you say “God is Love”, this could be seen as a more mature God box. These two examples are what I meant by  ”God box”.

My God box is constantly under evaluation, constantly evolving. Currently I see God as many things: He is the omnipotent father of all things, He is the historical/spiritual Jesus, and It is a spiritual entity that is nebulous in nature and can only be described by what It is not. This could be referred to as the Trinity. My God box is meshed with the concepts and realities of Allah and Buddha, not because I extract what I like from each religion to make my own “cafeteria-style” religion, but because I see how they are the same.  I say He is Love, but I don’t say it like others usually do. My image of God is One who does not do what you ask of Him. He helps you, but not in the way you often want. His will is beyond our will, implemented on behalf of not only our own sakes but everything else’s.

The best way to describe it is the will of a doctor and the will of a patient. We ask the doctor to cure us of our ailments. He cuts us up, he tears things out, he gives us pills. We go through all this invasive treatment with promise of feeling better… and at the end of the day we still feel nauseous and dizzy. Our sutures burn with pain, our insides are roiling inside of us, and the adverse effects of the medication makes us feel even worse. “How does this make me feel better?” the patient asks. The patient and the doctor shared the same goal in curing an ailment, but there was a difference in wills. The patient’s will was to be comfortable. To FEEL better. The doctor’s was to actually fix the problem. The patient was looking for instant gratification while the doctor was addressing the immediate medical priority AND the long term health of the patient. The doctor’s will may not be immediately inherent, but when you stand back and look at what all is going on and also realize that he is not just diagnosing you but hundreds of others don’t you think that what the doctor provided the patient was ultimately more beneficial than what was asked for? Trying to keep myself from writing a novel of a blog, this is the best I can describe what I see God as right now. There’s so much more to God than what I can describe at any point in time.

That’s what determines the scope of my God box: my ability to intuit God. My God box only exists to break God into digestible, bite-size pieces. It’s like a television, which is only capable of showing you what is able to fit onto film. What you see on the screen implies so much more, but you are not able to experience it in its entirety. As time passes, my God box seems to grow bigger and bigger to accomodate for my rapidly expanding image of God, and with each passing evaluation He becomes harder to contain into a box. My God box becomes more strained as I stretch it out. So what is going to happen when it reaches it’s limit? Is it going to halt in it’s tracks? Or is it going to split at the seams and bottom out? Is it going to be too much for me and I’ll just give up on it all? The problem becomes more than just being able to find out what God is. It also becomes an issue of preparing myself to experience more of what He is. It becomes an issue of my integrity as a vessel for God.

And after all that is said and done, after we have established a God box…what does it matter? What was it’s purpose? All we did was construct an image of Him, we never found Him. Wasn’t the God box constructed to help us see God in His entirety? How does it do that by cutting it into pieces? How does it help us see the big picture when all it is capable of doing is showing us a small window into what God is? How can we know who God is by making up our own idea of Him? One thing we must be aware of when constructing this God box is that what we see in it IS NOT GOD. It is our projections that we place onto what we believe God is. What we see in the God box we are more than willing to name God Himself. As DeMello said in Awareness, “people fall into idolatry because they think that where God is concerned, the word is the thing.” We construct a description of who we think God is then we fall into the rut of worshipping that, forgetting that it was only a guess at who He is. DeMello wrote about how he was confronted by a world-renowned scripture scholar. “It never struck me that I had been an idol worshipper all my life! My idol was not made of wood or metal; it was a mental idol.” DeMello reminded his readers that those that had constructed their own mental idol were the more dangerous idol worshippers because “they used a very subtle substance, the mind to produce their God.”

Maybe I was never meant to contain God in a box. Maybe I wasn’t meant to contain Him within me, this body serving as a Temple. How could all of what God is be within me? Maybe I’ve been using the wrong word this whole time. I’m not a vessel, I’m a conduit. I am a channel through which He flows through. Right now, the God box seems irrelevant. My experience and my ideas of God right now have surpassed any words that I am capable of expressing right now.  Right now it doesn’t feel like I could fit what I’m feeling inside a box and I’m all the better for it.

A Collection of Thoughts: Christianity

I’m so tired mentally, it’s been hard keeping up with the regular blog posts lately. I just don’t have the drive to write anything that makes me think. It’s the most inconvenient time to feel that way, as I’m being confronted with several issues that are calling for my attention: Christianity, responsibility, self control with alcohol, my views on sex, and generativity.

Concerning my Christianity, a lot of my concern has been sparked by my recent inconsistency with going to church. I just feel so guilty, whether it’s for rational or irrational reasons. Why am I feeling so guilty? I’ve been putting it off because with nursing school and personal time and my philosophy group and home errands all vying for a slot in my weekend schedule, Church gets put on raincheck. A lot of the guilt comes from my mother telling me how I would go to hell for not attending Church. Attending Church seemed to be the way she gauged how good of a Christian somebody was. Bleh, I hate that feeling, but it’s ingrained in me pretty deep. An extra kick in the balls came when I drove by a mob right off of Dixie St. near South Patio of Tennessee Tech, where I go. Sticking out of the mob was a huge banner saying “Turn to Jesus or Burn in Hell”. A head-turner, but what piqued my interest was the fact that some of my militant atheist friends were in the rabble. I parked nearby and walked over to see what the hell was going on.

Turned out there was an evangelist by the name of John making some pretty condemning statements and there were people gathering around, some yelling back at him. Initially, I was rather disgusted with what he had to say. He was spouting nothing but hate and damnation in the effort of scaring people into Christianity. Where was that going to get someone? What is the quality of faith of a Christian guided by fear? John was playing on their fear of death, on their fear of hell and damnation. Sometimes, I wish heaven and hell had never been mentioned to humans because I think it skews the true motives of a Christian. The ultimate goal of Christianity shouldn’t be a reward/punishment complex.

So there he was, shouting the Gospel as he saw fit, ignoring “foolish questions” and speaking over them. The opposing side wasn’t squeaky clean either. Students were spitting at his feet, blowing smoke at him, flashing porn, exercising their poor understanding and recognition of logical fallacies (quick note: pointing out a contradiction that has no relevance to the argument has not made anybody look smart since the sixth grade). There was even a point near the end when some of the students came back with posters saying “Honk if you love beer”, “Honk if you love porn”. I didn’t know what to think other than both sides were being idiots. Other than that, I felt pretty conflicted on how respond to it, if at all.

What I saw was a lot of fear and hate. Hate in John’s words, fear in his avoidance from certain confrontations. Hate from the spiteful students, and fear from those who continued to spite him. Fear from the Christian students who had felt that same way I had felt to some degree. They tried to confront him, tried to tell him that there were those who believed, to which he replied “I’m not here for you, I’m here for the unsaved. If you believe, then go and tell them the Truth,” to which they retreated a few feet and prayed. I chose to abstain from the prayer because I wouldn’t have been praying for the right reasons. It wouldn’t have been for John, it wouldn’t have been for the “unsaved”, it wouldn’t have been for God. Rather, it would have been at God asking for him to forgive me, to wash my hands of all that toxic feeling. That wasn’t the time to be thinking about myself, I thought. Instead, I kept on listening to John and to the few sincere questions that were asked and he would respond to amidst all the jeering and honking.

I don’t know about anybody else who was there, but I felt the love that had come from him. Beneath his vanity and his hate and his fear, there was a lot of love in what he had to say. If any of you remember my blog a while back about hypocrisy, this is a shining example of that post. Most of what John said may have been skewed or out of context, but it wasn’t entirely untrue. There was a teaching value to his words. To the best of his abilities and understanding, he was trying to help others, although not entirely for their sakes. In his eyes, by spending his money on a banner, by driving out two whole hours, by standing up to the heathens, the smokers, the prostitutes, the Sodomites he was a warrior on behalf of God. That was how he showed God his love.

And don’t think he wasn’t listening to those jeers. Don’t think he didn’t notice the spit at his feet. He was fighting back the look of defeat near the end and the only way he could hide it was by being more resolute. By making more accusations. He had to keep that warrior spirit in the face of evil. He wasn’t going to concede forfeiture. Down to the minute he left he was preaching, as flawed as everyone thought it was. In some ways it was noble, despite the foolishness of it.

Three days later I’m still trying to figure out what to think about it all. He might not have won over any Christians, but he kept me thinking in a time when I was staggering in my Christianity so I hope he didn’t leave feeling that he had failed in his mission.

On Religious War

I’d say one cause for religious war is selfishness. The motivation isn’t truly because “God wills it” or “Allah wills it”, but personal gain.

Pope Urban II launched the First Crusade to extend his power to Constantinople and beyond with an added bonus of fighting off the Seljuqs from previously Christian territory. The Crusaders were in it for all kinds of reasons. If you paid attention to Urban II’s speech, he referred to the Crusades as a pilgrimage. Anybody who died in battle would be remitted of their sins, for they were doing their duty to God. That probably had something to do with it. Also the plentiful amount of loot they would have amounted.

Now I’m not too familiar with Muslim beliefs and practices, but I’ve also heard that some modern terrorism is fueled by the belief that it is to glorify Allah and they will be rewarded with a harem of 72 virgins. Terrorists try to push this concept to take advantage of other individuals who either truly want to please Him or are more inclined to the prospect of a harem. One small problem with that is that Islam does not reward suicide. These small group of terrorists twist words and blur the line between martyrdom and suicide to take advantage of the rest of the population, especially the uneducated, for the sake of fighting the opposition.

On both sides, there was also a little bit of fear involved. Each side was afraid for their own sakes, their own fates, their own souls. They wanted to go to Heaven or any similar paradise, and they were told that going to war for the sake of their savior would make them shoe-ins for salvation. Any doubts they might have had about whether what they were doing as wrong would either be vindicated by calling the acts of war “on the behalf of God” or overshadowed by their own fear of damnation. Again, personal gain: getting into heaven. It’s a dangerous incentive that I think we’re all guilty of wanting. It’s not bad to want it, but sometimes it distracts us from the true motives for having faith.

Furthermore, I think religious wars are about spreading the influence of one’s own religion to another territory or purging another influence from your own territory. Isn’t that also personal gain? It’s because it’s YOUR religion and YOUR territory. You have invested some of yourself in these properties, so again it’s about you and what is yours. We want OUR religion to be the one that is right. If we just had religion as is, not place our ownership on it, I don’t think there would be too much call for religious wars.

So whether it be selfishness or even slightly enlightened self interest (“for the glory of God. My God”) a lot of these wars are a result of us wanting to make it about ourselves. We’ve got to take ourselves out of the picture. Let the ways of God, or whoever we choose, be done through us, not by us. Don’t confuse that with blind faith. One you have to work for, one you don’t.

Translations of Pope Urban’s Speech: http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/ChurchAndMinistry/ChurchHistory/Crusades_PopeUrbanClermontSpeech.aspx
Interesting blog post on the Reward of 72 Virgins: http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2007/03/04/debunking-the-suicide-for-72-virgins-myth/

Using His Name in Vain

Most people are aware of the second or third commandment (depending on which translation you use): “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.” It makes sense, right? Don’t say “OH MY GOD” or “God damn”. You are making a pointless or insincere oath. He wants you to put meaning into His name whenever you say it. Don’t use it so flippantly. At least that’s my take.

However, the word “vain” means more than just useless and ineffectual. Merriam-Webster’s fourth definition of “vain” is: 

4: having or showing undue or excessive pride in one’s appearance or achievements : conceited

That’s the definition I’m going to refer to today. One thing that bothers me is when I hear somebody make a reference to God every other sentence. To hear somebody attribute anything and everything that happens to them as either the work of God or the work of the Devil. To put in the token “First of all, I’d just like to thank Jesus Christ our Savior and God the Father,” in every acceptance speech I hear. I just feel like that’s the person saying “Look at me, guys. I’m a Christian. See how good of a Christian I am? I’ve made a reference to Him three times already in this conversation alone.” I just get the notion that when somebody does that, they are putting up a mask because they want to be seen as virtuous. They throw out all these context clues to imply that they are strong Christians. To me, that just turns His name into a buzz word. That’s the last thing I’d want to do.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that it’s not “cool” to be public with your faith. In fact, I want to promote that. I’m very open with my faith, and I would like others to feel as free as I am in sharing theirs. I just want people to stop and think before they say His name again. I don’t want it to become used so frequently that it becomes part of the background noise.

Think in terms of saying His name like you would say “I love you”. If I were to say “I love you” to my lover several times every time I met her, it would get old. There is almost no chance that I could possibly mean it with all my heart every time I said it if it was used so frequently. It would become more like a ritual to me, and the meaning would become diluted to the ears of my lover. It would be something she’d expect. She wouldn’t notice anymore if I had said it, but she would notice if I HADN’T said it. It would have become part of my identity to say “I love you”.  I don’t want the term “I love you” to be a part of who I am. I want it to be it’s own voice spoken through me. I want it to have a life of its own. I want her to notice every time I say “I love you”. 

That’s how I want God’s name to be used. It want it to be a treasure to say. I want it to resonate in the minds of others when I say it. I want His name to be an entity of its own, spoken through me. Don’t try to hide your faith, but don’t dilute it, either.

On God’s Punishment

Lately I’ve been battling with the thought of a wrathful God. I’ve
come to terms with an angry God, but one that punishes with death and
damnation, at times even on a grand scale, rubs me the wrong way. The
concepts of offspring being accountable for ancestors’ sins (Original
Sin) and death of firstborn (in the Exodus) are other things I don’t
like. Why does God hold us accountable for the sins of others? I can
understand being accountable for somebody else if I have the ability
to intervene, but how is it fair to be punished for sins an ancestor
committed before my birth? How is it fair that I be destroyed along
with the rest of the world (Noah’s ark, regardless of my own
beneficence/non-maleficence in it and fruitless attempts to influence
the rest of the world? Guilt by affiliation: how can you unaffiliate
yourself from the rest of the world? Sure, become an anchorite, but
weren’t those people also destroyed in the flood of Noah’s time?

So, all that turmoil is going on in my head. How could God do that?
The only reasonable explanation I can think of is this:I’m only
considering each individual’s well being, not the whole of humanity.
metaphorically speaking, I’ll say that humanity is a tree. The health
of that tree is evaluated through the wellness, the morality of
humankind. If you have virtuous people, the tree if flourishing. If
you have sinful, deprived people, your tree is wilting and decaying.
If you were a gardener and you saw one of your trees with dying
branches, what would you do? You would probably cut off those dead
limbs. You would do that to save the rest of the tree. If you left the
branch on the tree, it would needlessly leech resources that could be
better allocated to LIVING limbs. Or would you rather consider the few
living plant cells that still require nutrients in that dead limb?

Back on track. I’m not too familiar with the story, but I believe the
story of Sodom and Gamorrah was about two cities that were full of
adultery, sodomy, and a bunch of other sinful stuff. They were steeped
in it. So God purged the world of them. He surgically removed them.
They were dead limbs on the tree of humanity.

Now for a more advanced case. The people of Noah’s time were depraved.
They were all sorts of sinful. The depravity had infiltrated all of
humanity to the point of irreversible damage. Humanity, in it’s state,
could not sustain itself and flourish. The tree could not be saved.How
could that human race, that species of tree, be saved without wiping
out humanity entirely? In terms of plant life, you would cut off the
healthy branch and replant it, then uproot the rest. In terms of
humanity, He cut off Noah, the good branch, then uprooted the rest of
humanity with a flood. Noah then started over. Really, i don’t think
these stories literally happened, but the things I learned from the
story are valuable, nonetheless. The lessons can be learned across all
religions, or lack thereof.

All this is just a theory I have, the whole “sacrificing of part for
the sake of the whole” idea. I can’t make it my own at this time. I am
still concerned with each individual’s right as a human. Plus, this
theory doesn’t explain why God killed the firstborn of the Egyptians.

M’kay…that’s what I’ve been thinking about