The Evangelicals have shown me a philosophical way. Despite disagreeing with them on accepting Jesus as one’s savior, fostering a personal relationship with God, viewing the Bible as divinely inspired, and leading other’s to Christ, I still admire the essential pillar of the Evangelical: bring faith into all aspects of one’s life. I do, however, draw a distinct difference in defining God. In my experience, Evangelicals bring faith into their life by trusting God’s will and living with the knowledge that Jesus sacrificed his life for mankind. This means that by reading the Bible (the word of God) and praying, one can talk directly to God and thus remain faithful to His plans, all while knowing he is cleansed of sin by the blood of Jesus. Jesus is the example of there being a plan and accepting this into your heart is the way! The Evangelicals define this God as a being that created the Earth in seven days, who gave his only begotten son to die on a cross, and who is a puppet master of all life and things (this all may be true in a literary sense, considering it was written by man).
I lean heavily in the Carl Jung definition, that it’s the collection of human consciousness, essentially a man-made Knowledge expanding exponentially since the dawn of human thought that makes up God. Thus we’ve created the definitions that make up life and all things, as told to us by our senses (we’re still creating them!). Yet, mankind is passed the point of knowing the effects of his mind and thoughts (fortunately or unfortunately), so by influencing others and expressing his thoughts and self, he’s essentially supporting the exponential growth of God (and reflecting the state of nature). To have faith in one’s own self and individuality will grow God positively and bring the possibilities and impact of being unique into perspective. While Evangelicals may look forward to the kingdom of Heaven, I look forward to offering something new and interesting to God (and my fellow mankind).
I stumbled upon this book review in a recent WS, it inspired the above.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/014/810poygs.asp
4 comments:
i most wholly (not holy) agree with your accepted definition, except for the nature at which God, as a term/idea, is attributed, and possibly congratulated. such a definition exposes the actuality of what "god" indeed IS, rather than the philosophical band-aid the lingual term actually stands for, and is consequently, faithfully believed in. is the god you speak of not simply the tangibly logical conclusion of what "god" has haphazardly grown to be? does this not dismiss the term, and/or use of, "god" itself?
Excellent point, Nattical, I was thinking the same thing. If the God you're talking about doesn't fit hardly anyone's definition of God, it does seem to make more sense to not use the term (unless you have a blog to explain yourself, good post). I too have a unique definition of God, I refer to "it" as a question mark. I think that if any type of standard definition of God really exists, there would be no way our puny brains could wrap around the concept, so why bother trying? Why tell other people you know about God and his plans when you really don't? I feel wise enough to admit I don't know. I do enjoy hearing about Jay's spirituality though. I just have turned my back on all that stuff and have turned mostly into a skeptic for the most part.
Nah, I don't think we need to dismiss the term. The term has just been hijacked for so long. I don't think collected human thought dismisses the term God. I just like to think...add up everything anyone has ever thought...that equals God (the idea). I don't give it anything more than what man is capable of, that's why I think dismissing the term and idea is only doubting you're own realization. I don't personally claim to know what God is and I've turned my back on religion too.
This has nothing to do with spirituality, more to do with a state of mind.
I like to think of all the collected thoughts that have ever been thought as the "thought thoughts" as in thoughts that one has already thought, while thoughts yet to be thought I think should be thought of as those thoughts pre-thunk, though those thoughts could be thought to be not thoughts at all.
Post a Comment