Reply
Wed 4 Apr, 2007 03:39 pm
I have been undergoing changes in my personal views, which is the normal result as one learns. I have been studying religion for a long time, and the more I learn the more I am convinced that mankind owes it's existance to a higher being. I have long been calling myself an agnostic, not because I didn't believe in a higher being, but because it provided the most convienent definition that described my thoughts.
So what do I believe after all the searching and learning?
I believe that God does not know the future. I arrived at this belief after a long and difficult journey through ? and eventually away from ? the faith in which I was raised. When I was young, many people told me, "God knows everything." For years I tried to force my beliefs to conform to this view. But finally I took my personal leap of faith: I believe that God loves honesty more than conformity. And so I decided to go where my spirit moved me, even if that was away from the spiritual home of my ancestors.
I believe that the fate of our world is not locked in by Scripture, but that the future is shaped by the laws of nature and by what we humans voluntarily do during our time on this planet.
Many people believe every sunrise and sunset, every birth and death, every earthquake, flood and plague is a voluntary act of God. I believe that involuntary laws of nature explain the behavior of planets, tectonic plates, weather systems and viruses. The earth continually spins and dispassionately quakes. Catastrophes happen infrequently. They are manifestations of the same laws of nature that always govern the universe.
I believe God never tweaks the laws of nature to achieve some desired outcome. Having accepted this, I do not agonize over why God allows evil to occur. I don't expect God to intervene to help my team win a basketball game, either. As a kid, I thought God knew who would win before the game began. But today I'm convinced nobody knows for sure, not even God.
When I studied science in college, I met lots of people who had stopped believing in God. They asked, "If science explains the behavior of everything, from electrons to galaxies, then who needs God?" I agreed that science eliminates the need for a Creator, but the Creator is only one of the masks of God. The dispassionate mathematical laws of physics seem austere and impersonal, like a star or the moon. But the universe contains more than that. It also includes creatures like us who create purpose and meaning. Gravity does not care, but I do.
Physics does not explain the difference between sound waves and a song, or the difference between sex and love. Physics explains my body, but not my soul. I believe my soul inspires me to make decisions to diminish pain and increase love in the lives I touch. Lots of times I try, but fail. On a good day I actually get it right! And God is pleasantly surprised.
@Dmizer,
Very nicely written , Dmizer .
@Dmizer,
Here is something I found very interesting, if you haven't already read it I recomend this light read:
http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/leibuo.pdf
@Dmizer,
Wise is the man who knows he's never done learning.
@Dmizer,
Why is it that those who exhibit the worst judgement, are the most insistent that they be listened to? -----just a an observation I had at work today!
@Dmizer,
You are a true agnostic! Some who claim the title use it as a thin mask for a weak, lazy, & ill-used mind. But many claim other religious identities to the same end.
Perhaps our notion of God is too small rather than too big. Perhaps the unchanging laws of physics and movement of the earth, stars, and galaxies are, in fact, evidence of God's perpetual intervention in the physical world rather than proof against it.
@Dmizer,
Or maybe not, there is our dilemma.
@Dmizer,
Why should we try so hard to understand God? There are so many things that are hard to understand, and God, almost by definition, is impossible to understand.
@Dmizer,
True. I think, trying to understand God is quite impossible. If we tried to define God in human words, could we simply state - love?
@Dmizer,
I think the only human word that can define God is God.
@markx15,
markx15;13932 wrote:I think the only human word that can define God is God.
Great. So simple, yet profound.
@Dmizer,
True, but will everyone ever be satisfied with any definition of the wor God itself? I agree we should stick to this word, and explain how God has interacted with us. God is love, as you say, but isn't God also justice? God is many different things.
@Dmizer,
I believe that is true when speaking of everyone and their satisfaction. And yes, I think, many 1 word descriptions can attempt to define God.
But, I further theorize, if worldwide God could be defined in simple human terms could that possibly lead to religous tolerance? Which could possibly lead to resolving major worldwide conflicts. Somehow, I think, in the most broadest of terms, religious intolerance is poisoning the global community.
@Dmizer,
No. That could never happen. I would not want it to happen. it would cause more conflict. No religions would cooperate to do this. If other people than the religious did it, there would be riots in the streets, even with passive Christians.
@Dmizer,
Please explain further.....How exactly would defining God in simple terms, so that all could understand, cause more conflict? Why would there be riots? Why would passive Christians be hesitant then participate?
@Dmizer,
I'm saying that Christians are usually more passive about attacks on their faith, but would not be.
There are few similarities between the major religions of Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism. To say something like this about a single God existing in each would to be to attempt the impossible. It would be like making a world religion that we all mmust follow. No one would attempt the task.
@Dmizer,
No, i think there is some confusion here.
I do not advocate a one world religion philosophy at all. A world with only one religion would be rather limited. Just a common definition we can all agree on, I think we are talking about defining God, not religion, right?
@Dmizer,
But we would have to follow this one God, right, in effect creating that one world religion. There are too many differences among religious people to make an agreement about God's nature.
@Dmizer,
No. We would not. No religious thought would be forced on anyone.
My theory:
"Defining religious teachings in simple, common human terms may led to increasing religious tolerance amongst people"
Practically, if specific religious leaders could do this, it could lead to an greater global understanding. I would further propose that individuals could accomplish the same thing.
@Dmizer,
Yes, but as I said, this could not happen. It is impossible to reconcile religions and make one common definition. The very fact that religions are and must be more complicated than this is the sign of their legitimacy, IMO. There are too many differences to do this. i won't get into specific theological definitions for each faith, but.
BTW, what is your religion, just to clarify many things around here?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace