Was just reading this on facebook, before coming to WC.  Long piece, but thoughtful, IMO.  I congratuate Evan Smith for raising the question directly, so that we all might be better appraised. 

" I have come to believe, however, that using theistic language metaphorically without disclosing that you are doing so is a form of dishonesty in which I no longer wish to participate, fluent in it though I once was. And simply saying that God is a metaphor without saying what it is a metaphor “for”, if not dishonest, is at least lacking in clarity."   - Gretta Vosper.

 

There is a lot to take in in Gretta's article - but the above stood out for me on a first reading......

 

If one rejects the orthodox view of God, and one still has a conception of "God" - then one is forced down the metaphor road.

But, what Gretta says here, rings true.

 

At my church God is seen through a metaphorical lens, but it soon became obvious to me that the God metaphor differs widely -and it's conceivable that each person chooses a metaphor that supports his/her own ideas.

(In short, we create our own God.)

 

I find that the process theology is the theology model that works best for me at the moment - but it is folks like Gretta, who help me question my faith.

As such, she is to be praised, rather than condemned.

 

Besides, even if we do create God, rather than the other way round, that doesn't negate the possiblity of a God - we all could be "wrong" -and God is incredulous at some of our speculation.  

  The question of projection is an old question.  It is a basic metaphsical and philosophical question.  As Whitehead has shown in several places projection means there is no ontological reality other than the self.  Projection means we are the only creators of reality, and thus our words only reflect our reality.  Now it has a long history and Feuerbach is one of the persons who suggested that projection is the best conclusion which leads only to subjective reality.  Of course we can cover the issue with it is metaphor but do metaphors refer to a reality that is only partially caught by the metaphor?  If not then all knowedge is only subjective knowledge.

This is why process thought does actually suggest a ontological reality.  Panentheism is the way to frame the metaphor but it is not projection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Mendalla:

 

I don't think it matters whether you have the same understanding of metaphors as Gretta. I think it is up to every one of us to create the meanings of metaphors. To have different meanings for the same metaphor is or ought to be acceptable. It certainly is with me.

 

I too would feel comfortable in her congregation, and I would like to see her accepted by the UCCan, though she might be a better fit for the UU. What I would really like to see is for the UCC to move into a UU direction.

 

 

 

Yes, Pan, I understand that process theology does actually suggest an ontological reality...... 

 

I'm referring to my own faith journey.

I'm in the process camp - because I do experience God as  separate from me.

 

But, what trouble me, is my experience "real" or a projection?

Perhaps if we don't allow ourselves this question, there is a suggestion of arrogance on our part?

 

Hi PP:

 

Sure, there is an ontological reality, but what we think about the ontological reality may not be the real ontological reality but our projection.

 

So how can we get to know or experience the real ontological reality?

 

I think when go deeply within, in prayer, meditation, or contemplation, beyond the conceptualizations of the analytically thinking mind, into the pure experience of reality, then we expereince the real ontological reality which is God.

 

When we conceptualize our experience of this "pure" reality, however, then our pre-concieved concepts intervene, and we project onto the experience what we think we experience.

 

I believe that everything that really matters: truth, beauty, creativity, grace, contentment, joy and inner peace, arise from the experience of the pure ontological reality. To act directly from the depth of that experience, without intervention by the thinking mind, is one of the aims of Zen Buddhism.

 

And, when we employ our thinking minds—which we must because we are a thinking species and can't and shouldn't do without thinking—then we should think directly from the depth of that experience. Then thinking is a creative act, arising directly from the experience of the creative power of the universe.

 

This, I think. is divinely inspired thought and action.

 

But then this is only my projection.

 

The old cosmic catch 22, eh?

 

Seriously, though, by creating ever better interpretations of the ontological reality, we are coming ever closer to its real nature. This, I think, is process theology: a creative process that we humans collectively engage in. Discussing it here on the Café is part of the process.

 

 

There are so many Gretta debate threads now I'm having trouble keeping up. Have been busy with work and not much time. I read the above article and must say I agree with her. The god she doesn't believe in is the same one I don't believe in. Although, I do not consider myself an atheist. I am a Christian. And I don't believe that Jesus was a fundementalist. The main difference of opinion I have with her is- I don't think the language should be abandoned altogether. I don't believe in rigid doctrine but I also think that people should be given the opportunity to learn about the language from a non-literal point of view. I think the language needs to be taught in the way that mainline ministers learn to understand it in seminary. Because if it isn't, there's a big gap (not just a 'thin space'). I think there needs to be a bridge- and it is far too early to pull up that bridge given some of the powerful brainwashing out there causing harm. People need to be encouraged to think metaphorically and need a place where they can learn to, and discuss their learning. I am not sure we should ever pull up that bridge- until humanity arrives at unity and peace (which, ironically, I believe is the biblical Kingdom ideal- a world with no ideologies to seperate us- just respect for God /Life and love of one another), even if we have to walk in that hope for a 'new world' forever. As long as it takes. I believe thinking metaphorically is a fading art- dismally so- that the ancients caught on to far more easily- and we shouldn't lose that ability, but nurture it back to life. Reactivate our right hemispheres- because without them I believe humanity is headed for a sad state of affairs. We need the ability to stretch our brains and imagine a better life for the world beyond what's obvious and beyond what we can methodically predict.

Pilgrims asked if thinking about God as seperate is a projection of our own thoughts about God. I believe it can be- and that doesn't make that experience less real. In the same way that we dream about things that encorporate our real experiences with our imagination. That we dream, is in itself a reality. So, maybe the 'reality' of God is that God is both a projection outward, a reflection inward, and part of us. 'Within and among'.

Instead of abandoning Christian language completely and tossing out the Bible- we need to unpack the harmful baggage it carries and use it synonymously with modern language until there is no confusion. Because Christianity has become a dirty word for a lot of people- associated with extreme judgmentalism, sexism, homophobia, hypocrisy, false piety, and hastening of the end of the planet while we welcome and 'bless' new children into a growing dystopia of poverty famine and wars exacerbated by religious extremes mixing with world politics- that has a lot of people understandably upset- but it doesn't have to be that way. At some point we need to start turning the swords into plowshares- for real. As a Christian who doesn't take the Bible literally- I can nevertheless see that the world is in a literal armagedeon like mess of our own human making (there are truths in the bible about human nature that repeat themselves- this is important to learn- some Christians look on those 'signs' with glee- because they think the good guys with prevail and they are the good guys, and everyone else will burn. I do not look upon the state of the world with glee. It's a mess and that's nothing to be joyous about- I think we have created a potential "hell" (literal hell already, for many)if we don't get off our butts and work to make it better- and nobody's going to swoop down and save us from ourselves. That's a metaphor. As the 'body' of Christ- we've been called to make the world a better place. So, I don't believe in waiting around for God to fix it magically. We have the tools: Love God (Life), love our neighbours, and even love the jerks ("enemies") who hate the idea of making the world a better place in the future- so that their children's futures can be better (a new 'world') too. And on it goes. That, to me, is Christianity. The hopes are the same the hopes in the hearts of many non-Christians, and we should not be putting up walls on making peaceful progress. The language may differ because the language has become contentious for many- and I can see why- but that doesn't mean we have to scrap it totally.

Debating the ontological reality of God, though, kind of misses Gretta's point as I read it. She seems to be pointing towards a religion that isn't primarily about theology but how we react to the notion that there is a fundamental force of Love in existence, whether we find that force in a personal, loving Deity or in the deepest aspirations of the human heart. "God" is an image and without us learning to live that Love, it is remains a mere image. Not sure if Gretta would put it this way, but it could (and has been on here and in other places) be argued that theological speculation of any kind (process included) is ultimately just that - speculation - and that it is nothing more than intellectual masturbation (pardon the crudity, but it's a term that fits) if it does not result in deeper connection to each other and the world. I'm not wacky about "God is Love" for various philosophical reasons (most notably, if God = Love, why would we need another word, just say we worship Love) but whether God is Love or God is the transcendent source of Love, the call is to Love actively not to merely Think.

 

Mendalla

 

Theological metaphor of God as just something infinite; is this beyond mortal conception or just myth without some stretch of the abstract?

 

This would be imagination going against the absolute reality of a god that out of here as chi couldn't deal with institutionalized ego ... porr objective reflections?

 

How could a limited institution teach metaphors of unlimited value systems? They can't and thus the reason intelligence fails in the church ... one open minded UU said he didn't wish any more words and thus the end verse of the Gospel of John went underfoot as subtle ...

 

Many limited souls can't imagine anything larger than this and the imaginary part of the mind is stiffled ... or thus become devoid space ... like sheep emptied of thought by certain types of institutional leaders like Nurse Ratchet that could crank one with a wee bit of free thought ... then they'd be out of it like Broom and Murph' ... collect all the dirt you can on the mortal and go back where you came from ... 'elle've a myrrh-th' ... with unconnected relations to Matthew 7:3.

 

Only rare theologians can see these things like N. Frye, CS Lewis, etc. Thus the old mythology is roled over ... like sidewinder Revelations ... explaining snakes and creeping wisdom to those that despise such process!

Setting aside questions of "essential agreement" and whether Gretta should be in the United Church ministry (I've said on another thread that those questions are the responsibility of her congregation and Presbytery to deal with) what Gretta believes personally is what Gretta believes. The basic problem with what she wrote (to me) is this line:

 

I believe, as Don Cupitt says in his latest book, that anyone trained in a mainline theological seminary can be nothing other than a sceptic when it comes to the theistic god called God.

 

I received my M.Div. from a mainline theological seminary, and my D.Min. from a mainline theological seminary. I am not "a sceptic when it comes to the theistic God called God."

 

You see, when I start to have a problem with what someone believes is when they start to suggest that others have to believe what they believe (or be sceptical about what they're sceptical about.) 

God=Love, hmmm- not warm fuzzy love anyway. Tough love at times. But love, in the sense that we exist because of this source of Life. God=Life fits better. Because no matter how important we think we are, how in control, how self determined, there is nothing we can do without it. Life can be rough sometimes. But we need Life to be alive. In that sense, my relationship to Life is personal. Can anyone say it isn't? We owe our existance to Life. There must be a purpose for us that's not random. We're thinking, feeling, creative, self aware beings that are interdependent- but our egos are so huge we think we own Life. Life owns us, and humbles us down to size so we don't destroy everything we have been given to thrive. I think that's where the love comes in.

But does God=Life work any better? Really, that's pantheism, isn't it? There's no need for a transcendent personal aspect in that equation.

 

If God is transcendent in any way, then God must be the SOURCE of Love or SOURCE of Life, not Life and Love themselves (though you can argue that these are transcendent, they are not personal in and of themselves but express themselves through other beings).

 

OTOH, if we are dealing purely in the realm of metaphor, then by all means God could be a metaphor for Life and Love as forces of existence and God=Life and God=Love hold up on that level. The problem then becomes, why use the metaphor? Can't we worship (uphold as worthy) Life and Love on their own without the metaphor?

 

That's kind of the cusp I'm on now and have been for some time. If there is no transcendent personal aspect to God, does the word "God" itself become meaningless? Can "God" really mean anything without a "real" God?

 

Mendalla

 

Would cynicism about mortals doing anything they wish to their neighbours cause abstract gods to create unnatural disturbances in the aforementionned absent soul?

 

Those believing in absolute freedom of right appear to have rejected the conception of soul ... an imaginary field. Thus there are no thoughts about  general feelings about cumulative desires in a rare bunch.

 

This comes to light in a soul study field that is denied in many seminaries ... as the soul was hung in a tree some millenia ago ... a sort of regressive dimension .. of the dark imagination ...

 

I went ot a soul study seminar with an audience of mostly theologians some years ago ... and most of the theologians were really pissed off by such a strange presentation in their (closed) society.

 

Kinda got me thinking; which many said was not allowed by outsiders ... appears as anachronism (not as it appears) and thought is thus oppressed in the outside grouping ... sometimes referred to as pagans by those thinking themselves higher on that angel-demon scale ... a scale that appears to be self-destructive ...

 

Look at our surroundings out side authoritarian dimensions all are drifting towards psychotic  dementia of wisdom ... like a fiord across TO's Citii Hall ...

And these authorities believe me whacko!

There is a transcendent personal aspect to God, if God is Life. Being alive is the only thing that makes me, me- and you, you. Maybe that is why God is called I Am. Without it- Nobody is.

So, flip side of your question Mendalla- why not call life and love, God?

 

But the personal aspect to that relationship could be said to come from within us, rather than being a personal aspect to Life. IOW, "God" is a metaphor for Life, not a real transcendent personality, just as I suggested in my last post.

 

 

But the UU seventh principle (respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part) encapsulates most of what you've said here (save, arguably, the purpose part) without reference to a personal God so a personal God must be more than this. Is God the purpose, then? Problem is that not everyone would agree with you that there is purpose inherent in existence. More than a few philosophers have argued that purpose is something we create and project on to existence.

 

Mendalla

 

 

Because then you're redefining them instead of redefining God and they are much more complex words/ideas (love, for instance, can be a verb).

 

Why not leave them alone but also leave God alone as meaning a transcendent, personal aspect of existence?

 

You can have Love. You can have Life. You can have God as a/the source of both and none of the words would need redefining. Your only problem is that some will reject the existence of the third (God). And many of those would also reject using God to mean Love or Life so redefining the terms the way you propose accomplishes nothing.

 

You can have your faith in God as a transcendent source of Love/Life without having to redefine words to force others to have it, too, which is what you do if you try to say "Love = God". Someone says "I believe in the power of Love" and you respond "Then you believe in God" when, in fact, they may simply mean Love as a force in human relationships.

 

Mendalla

 

 

 

Being alive is kinda personal for me, yeah. I used to take it for granted a lot more. The fact that we were formed out of star-stuff and eventually evolved into creative self aware beings is something that tells me- there is some kind of big picture 'personality' inherent in this source of life and existance that's not scientifically knowable with our limited capacities and and 'smallness'. Just as with the cells in our bodies- they have 'behaviours' that are integrated into the whole thing- but they 'know not what they do'. As the story goes though- Jesus is the best look we get as to what 'God' is like. And I believe that.

Have you never felt God's warm fuzzy love? I believe I have, and I imagine there are a good number of people who would say that they have too. I hope some day you will feel it also.

Yes. I have. And actually, I don't believe that real love can be not of God- but nor can the rest of life. Warm fuzzies are not what all of life's about. Which sometimes includes some rough spots- learning opportunities!

"Which sometimes includes some rough spots- learning opportunities!"

 

In the theology of the tree of knowledge and en-tome-NG the Levite in literary code would learning opportunities be just the devil? 

 

The rich and powerful would thus prefer the common folk illiterate ... just watch the trends ...

 

God is the word! Now is that a funny metaphor or what; too deep in subtle form?

For me, "the theistic God" is a big thing, it is a big phrase.I like to ask in what way folks are using it. In the big picture way, it is belief in a deity (or deities). There many can say, "I am a theist". Then one can narrow it down to who that God is or what that God is like... and find one is not theistic in that narrow definition. One can even ask if "belief" is faith without proof, is it theism or is it agnostic (the position of I don't know)? We can narrow theism down in such a way that pantheism, deism,polytheism are a rejection of theism and thus a-theism. Our religious language can mean so very much or so very little and can mean multiple things at the same time.

 

Agreed. Still, warm fuzzies are nice...

If you don't question the derivation of a' theist from èðé-sm that can wobble between Caduces and JaNus ... the understanding thereof is lost in lierary conception. S the shuttling goes on for all except those coming to rest; deep interstitial dimensions? Why some say god is sleeping within ... a grand myth!

 

So many say there is no literary principle in the holy writ, to the point it become satyr, or bucolic humur ...''learn enough word and you see the humur in the drive towards ignorance as a collective energy towards elimination of the whole part that is devoid ... and god departs leaving only silly devils that ponder deep questions about sparking debates of what can be pinned on the unthinking Don Qui ... heh hoo fell indi ole portion; sect!

It just is. Why do you need to categorize it? Gretta's right, that in that sense- it gets in the way of actually doing the work of helping the world. Crap, the whole thing could burn up while we're still talking about whether we're theists, atheists, agnostics, diests and what have you. It's a waste of time. It's just not that interesting and kind of self indulgent after awhile when there is need for help everywhere. I see beliefs relevant to me in each of those definitions- if I must be defined- how I fit each of them in some way for some things. But not any one way all the time- because I am acutely aware that the whole of Life, the whole universe and the whole history of humankind is just to big to get my head around and there's too much information still missing for me to be absolute about how I define it all. You can call me what you want. I'm not that important. In the big picture I am very little- especially when we're all broken down into human imposed categories. Just another little human among billions trying to slot myself into another little manmade label about a huge concept- so that others can determine what I am- to do what- judge if I fit their mold? I know what I've experienced. I call myself Christian.

The spiritual experiences I've had- trying to explain it would likely have (as I've experinced) the Born agains worried about me, the Catholics validating me, the agnostics shrugging their shoulders, the Buddhists telling me to let go of attachments to it, and the atheists recommending a psychiatrist- so I don't know what to categorize it as. I call myself Christian.

I've never told you to consult a phychiatrist. A dictionary, sure.

 

Ah, Canucks are such Puritans at heart......

Masturbation is okay, God told me so - more years ago than I care to remember.

 

I still think that the question of whether God is a separate entity or concept  -or created by our own thought - is the prime theological question.

To say it's been argued about and discussed for years, and is now "old hat", doesn't negate this, IMO.

 

Yes, all philosophy is just that: speculation.

 

If, as I believe, ultimate reality, or God, is in a state of nonduality or synthesis, then dualistic thinking simply can't get at IT.

 

But IT can be experienced, and is being experienced, in the pure, undifferentiated experience, as in centering prayer, contemplation, meditation or any kind of serious turning inward.

 

Alas, any speculation about such experience is just that: speculation. I, however, prefer not call it speculation but creation.

 

If I am permitted only one philosophical definition of God, I would say that God is creativeness.

 

(and, of course, creativeness is the power of transcendence

 

First PP yes what we construct is our constructs and we must ask if those models do re- present the ontological reality or if they actually deny it.  So all our models are  but partial re- presentations of that reality which I call love supreme.  

Mendalla I beg to differ on your read of Vosper, for she does deny any ontological reality.  She thinks we should live love, yes, but that is a human virtue only.  Yes communities can be based on love and that may energies living an ethical and compassionate life, and that is good enough.  The question history asks how lasting?

 

Further, there are other important intelluctual questions that must be addressed. Yes there can be a source of life and we need language to make that presences present.  Thus theology is one way of helping us experience presence, as in God is present to us.  If though we deny ontological reality of love then it cannot be present to us for it is only our creation.  Yes all speculation must connect us to one another and to the needs of one another, and if it does not then it is hollow.  Again, though, we do have extential questions which some form of speculation helps make clearer our place and agency in actualizing love.

Greta Vosper gives a thoughtful and honest answer.  However, there are other other ways to respond.

When I was in seminary at the University of Chicago The Death of God hit theology. My thesis advisor, Thomas W. Ogletree, who wrote The Death of God Controversy, took us to an event with the then leading Death of God theologians. Tom pointed out that they all had studied with Barth. Tom had done his thesis on Barth and had now moved into Theology of hope. Given all of this, he offered a course on rethinking the doctrine of God because he realized Barth was not a help. We read Charles Hartshorne, John Cobb jr. and the reality of God by Ogden. Of course, we also read all the death of God theologians and Barth's small book on God. This was a transformation event, while I was not or every had been since my teen years, a supernaturalist with an intervening God, I now had a construction to speak of God; panentheism and process Theology. There were other process thinkers at the seminary so I began my journey into AN Whitehead.

When I returned and joined the UCC I was surprised at how few of my colleagues were unaware of this tradition of Process Thought. When I was on the Christian Faith committee most were influenced by Barth and a couple by Tillich. There was a anti metaphysical vibe. I tell all of this because I am surprised that so many of the clergy have not moved on or began to rethink doctrines of God and end in the simplistic, if I am not a supernaturalist I must be an atheist, when there are other ways of framing the issue.

When we had courses by Cobb and others at Five Oaks there was resistance on the part of liberals. However, for some it was a life saver. Still, trying not to be too hard on colleagues, I find many had not explored new ways of speaking of God. However, there is a new group who are discovering Panentheism and Process and thus the augments given in the article in the Observer rate a oh hum, such old liberal thought. There is a surprise at some of the comments, like where have they been theologically?

The point of allowing debate is crucial. That is how theology evolves. At the same time, are there boundaries where some ideas no longer fit within the trajectory? Not that we should condemn the person but to ask if they have moved out theological from Christian Theologies. Some of the early death of God people did when the logic of their reflections were taken seriously.

Like Greta Vosper I opposed the inclusion of the additions.  Not because essential agreement is hard.  When one understands the 20 articles are not to be read literally, which both conservatives and some progressives and liberali can do, but outline the basic questions theology must answer.  As  Philip Clayton puts it:  The seven questions for theology:
* The first issue is who is God and how is God related to the world?
 * Then we move into a second level of reflection.  Who is Jesus the Christ?  Note by that very phrase we are asking about his teachings, his life and his mission.  To that we have added secondary questions - like the virgin birth and the way the early church understood him.
*Who is the Holy Spirit?  (the Trinity - which is how God is related to the Spirit and the Son)
*Anthropology - what does it mean to be human?  How are related to animals and the natural world and what distinguishes us?
*The meaning of sin?  The meaning of salvation?  The role Jesus has in redemption and our role?  ( soteriology)
*What is the church? (ecclesiology)
*The meaning of hope in the present and for the future after death.  How does Jesus as the Christ fit into this?  (eschatology)
 

Now the language of the 20 articles reflect the theological assumptions of the time they were formed, essential agreement only means we can give a theology on the basic issues.  I discovered, personally, that when I said I had a problem with the one on God they asked what was my understanding and I gave a panentheistic answer, and that was fine for they did not want a literalist response.

  Well said.  This is why I feel language and context and theology (philosophy) help us get at what is being said.  I believe in the power of love, as you said, may mean I love the other and no reference than human emotion, or even reductionistic to the brain.  What if there is a source for that love that is efficacious in all action, and independent of that action?  This where reflection comes in to give precision on what is being meant.

 

I never said she did deny it. I simply said that she doesn't see theology as the focus of a faith community so much as living in love.

 

 

Intellectual inquiry into faith and God has its place, and I do as much of it as anyone on here. However, for some it seems to take the place of the practical realities of living the faith or becomes a barrier to living the faith. In the end, how our theology guides us to treat others and live in relationship is more important than "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" questions.

 

Mendalla

 

Love is a force in human relationships- yes, it's a verb. Which we need. Without it we wither and die. Life is what causes us to exist. Love is part of Life. That which is counter to love is fatal to existance. What I am trying to say, is that those are essential elements to human existance- those are the elements that I think ancients personified when trying to explain how those elements 'rule' us- the ones we should respect. Those elements are what God is. Like bread is flour and yeast, a dash of salt, and water- mixed together- and heat. I'm not redefining the ingredients by calling it bread. And I'm not redefining what bread is by naming it's elements. God, then, is not just a transcendent force- it's the primary force which we are fully dependent on to exist. No matter what we think about it- no matter how much we study and discuss it- that's kind of irrelevant when we consider we need it in order to exist to even be able to think about defining it. If God=Life itself, then it makes sense that all glory goes to God for our existance. Humanity didn't invent itself. If Jesus is understood as the personification of the element of God that shows us what life affirming love looks and feels like- and the Holy Spirit is life giving- the verb- then it makes sense. That's why I think God=Life, works. You could refer to God as life itself, to Jesus as the personification of love in human form, and to the Holy Spirit as love in action- and that would mean the same thing. But why are we do quick to discard the wisdom of the ancients instead of understanding what they meant and realizing it's still applicable- so that there can be a bridge between then and now instead of polarization between what we've determined to be "old and passé" and "new and intelligent"? What happens then is people take extreme positions- some don't want anything to do with the "new" because it's too worldly and they feel that's a threat. And some don't want to go near the "old" because it carries too much baggage.

I agree with Mendalla. You're just redefining words again. I don't so much mind when you redefine "God", because God is so poorly and randomly defined in the first place. But when you start saying God is life and love, then those of use who have life and love without God start to look at you funny because you're not making sense.

Read it again. I don't know how I could make more sense. Ask me what you feel I haven't explained.

We need Life in order to exist, right? I am hypothesizing that the ancients understood, when they called God, God, they understood it to be Life itself. They didn't know anything about particles of energy- but they knew whatever it was it was responsible for their very existance- hence the metaphor "breathing life into...". They personified it in order to teach about It. But that doesn't negate "It". What we would now call Life itself. And I am proposing we need to keep a bridge to that understanding.

I think it's the literalists in recent times who have redefined the meanings in a destructive rather than constructive way-- the non-literalists can use synonyms and metaphors to find constructive meaning in it without being irrelevant or dangerous to the present place we're at- or, morse so, to the future. Non-literal/ metaphorical thinking was prevalent before the extreme literalists came along.

Metaphors do NOT redefine words. Seriously, you need to figure out what you're trying to say.

I said what I'm trying to say. What don't you understand of what I said?

Yes, as a follower of the "God is life and love" theology - I can readily see  why those, who are both loving and love life, but don't profess a theology, feel as you do, chansen.....

I know many who are in this category....

 

Perhaps, (and I say perhaps because I don't know) that if they live out love in their life - God is in them, even if "they" are not into God?

Afterall, one can say thay don't believe in climate change, but that has no bearing on reality.

 

The older I get, the more I think it doesn't matter a rat's arse what we "believe" - it's how we live out our lives.

 

I also think that we humans have an inbuilt need to make sense of our world - which we do, since humans existed, by thinking and speaking in stories.

 

In today's world there are those that think science tells the story just fine, thank you very much.

But, there also those than look to science for the "how" - and yet have a need (from where?) to seek a "why".

 

Either way, if you live with love as your guide, I'm okay with your faith/philosophy.......

 

 

But we need hate; it appears as a "theme noire" for those that love war ... the insane advocate of population control since such intelligence is avoided by overtly passionate people that despise intellect, knowledge and outerwise brilliant thoughts in a dark surrounding ...

 

My biggest hope and imaginary wondering is that Paul Harvey is right and true regarding the other sideof myth. This allows that myths have depth and are thick for those trending towards misunderstanding ... maas*Ð*urbanizing in a tome? Come along now and think ... a pure process on the back side ...

 

Perhaps why creation sent us into this mote ... in the large eye of the cosmos to cause a gleam of "mass turbation". What's tur*Ba*shin? Its derived from the disturbance caused by the rise of Semite (lettered) events that cause the restful to stir ... and allow that old country and western tune; 4 O'clock in the Morning.

 

Anybody see that satire (TED.com) on the impossibility of connecting random events ... in a close grouping where astrophysical scientists try and connect random groups of lumps in space as logical. Einstein called these bumps in space ... of course he was looking from the opposing side from the attractive or gravid side!

 

Can you imagine joining gravid minds with informational minds (memes) about what's out there? This would simply destroy institutionalized BS and stones would fall out of heaven's deep dimensions ... a pittiful thought to many as anything beyond them is an devil's hole; up or down in a flatland creation!

 

When you dead you're just information of a page? Could there be more to it than that if you are conceived in thought once you've passed over into mental territory?

 

Is that out-a-'ere or what? Sort of like young folk mincing brains in ineffable activities ... corpulant-copulance described as doing nothing to see if really something can be made from nothing in a thought-blowing alchemy? 

 

Outlining such activities is satisfactory when there are metaphorical words to speak of unspeakable bairn yard functions of phoqah Luce of thoughts ...

 

Some say it is evil to observe such activities as it could cause barmy conceptions for those with weak souls ... thus opportunist viewing of what is supposed to be mystical or unknowing activity is out of the question. The culmination is that hidden emotionas buld about quriosity until all 'elle breaks Luce---Freudian chill from the slippage of cool thoughts about avoiding consequences to mind-blown incidents ... 4-thoughts? 

 

There would need to be an empty dimension (soul) to put prescience .... no! Thoughts that could be shoe'd or shue'd out with some type of containment? The saacing of the evidence of god-making? In story-telling this could lead to metaphorical mention of the inner skin of de lamb ... a false 4's kin?

 

next comes de sooc'n of that appendange to allow what crationary forces wished in the firt place ... evidence that something could be made in the doing of nothing ... an adolescent pastime to learn about what isn't spoken of in the church of passons. This allows relatives of the young virgen to nail or shotgun the supposed criminal who was numbed into the situation by those knowing what lack of intelligence can accomplish ... virtual's crew ups!

 

You can even create words for those that will miss understanding these words on god actions of independant verbosities of love like omega'd ... I'yam nearly there ... and thus I Come as a hymn of point ... a place to pile the angels and demons? They get it eventually ... and life either becomes disturbed or productive, depending on your desire for the outcome;

• a child to love
• A child for canan fodder
• a child to work to the bone ...

This intelligence replicates itself in leaving a place of gross passion ... why heh lofts rise in groans of bloody humis ... humir?

 

Real mortals don't know any beta ... that secondary after the passions ... like ego, it comes back to yah ... determining the function of reflection in a dark order ... obsidian obtuseness! This was once know as a polished dark mire ... hard, ground, smooth ... foundation of spirit of laughter if one could only see themselves going through un-intellectual logic ... the logic of love to someone like AirClean and others that would soooner blow off the conceptionof soul study commonly known as psychology, or the related etude of the larger gonad ... psychi a'tree as it appears above the imaginary surface ... where the roots are sublime in a dark pool.

Responding to Rev Gretta Vosper's comments, Rev Steven Davis said:

 

 

Agree with you completely Rev Steven Davis! 

Why do they not get that as part of the Golden Rule of putting all things together?

Con'virgin'ce; and the soul begins to congeal ...

 

A small damn spot in an ocean of emotions ... causing great troubles for those dealing only in purity rules ... all the fibres and strings ... coming together? Reminds me of a sheep skin in the gorse ... with the sheep still in it of course ... appears like old St Pede himself coming outa dah bush! Everything hanging off heh ...

Hi Mendalla,

 

 

She does make it very clear on where she sits with respect to "essential agreement."

 

 

And so?

 

I know when the speed limit says 60 that 61 is a violation of the Highway Traffic Act.  I know that when the speed limit says 60 that 75 is a violation of the Highway Traffic Act.  I know that when the speed limit says 60 that there is nothing above 60 which is not a violation of the Highway Traffic Act.

 

It doesn't matter how far I can go breaking that limit nor does it matter how fast I can go while breaking it.  In fact, if I testify that I have been violating such limits for the whole of my driving career and never hurt anybody while doing so I can expect that the court is not going to consider my case favourably.  

 

The Reverend Vosper admits that she was not in "essential agreement."  She also chose, knowing that, not to withdraw from the ordination process.

 

I wonder if, when I went for my driving exam if I had told the instructor that I would never again obey a posted speed limit and failed to observe them while taking the exam if I would have passed?  Should I have passed if I made such and admission and then ignored every posted limit during my exam?

 

Everyone in process knows that the question will be asked.  Everyone in the process knows that affirmation is required.

 

Did the Reverend Vosper say yes or did she say know when the question was asked?

 

We have no record of that conversation and the Reverend Vosper has not actually given us her response to that question.  She has told us that she couldn't then and can't know agree to be in "essential agreement".

 

 

Which frankly begs the question.  If the Reverend Vosper could not claim to be in essential agreement when asked and she did in fact say that she wasn't how did the Education and Students Committee of her Conference interpret her no to be yes?

 

Apart from the fact that she appears to be ducking any responsibility and suggesting that anyone questioning her ordination really should be blaming the Education and Students Committee for not doing their job properly.  Which, while it might not be far from the real problem, does not absolve her of any responsibility.

 

At the very least she isn't claiming that she answered the question in a drunken stupor.

 

Later on she offers the following:

 

 

As far as beliefs go that is fair.

 

Is it accurate?  And if it is, are all ministers who were trained in a mainline theological seminary who do not claim to be sceptic simply liars?

 

Which turns the table nicely for the Reverend Vosper doesn't it?

 

Now she stands as a paragon of truth and all who disagree are cast as liars?

 

While I appreciate that the Reverend Vosper has taken the time to respond.  Her response does not convince me that the Church needs to reconsider the practice of essential agreement or redefine what it is that we are supposed to be in essential agreement with.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

 

Mendalla raises some very important points as does chansen:

 

First, yes living is crucial, and we are judged by that not not by our belief.  The other is our use of language and how language works to tell us about what or how we see the world. Further, some use of language does cover up or is sloppy which means it signifies nothing.  There has to be  a relationship between what a word signifies and what is the signified- Heat refers to something that is understood more universal than just our sense of it being hot, and can be tested.

 

Here is the problem of love = God.  Love is a broad term and while having some shared meaning it is hard to then say Love = god because what one has done is shift a theory God=Love, a theological construct and made it equal.  In the first the signified has many signifies, but the other way God is the signified who is found in the signifies, the many experiences of love.

 

This works if one accepts the theological premise of God  =love and moves from there.  The problem is the issue of God as the signified.  If one rejects any concept of God then the premise fails.  However, that still means one can posit love as universal, but then it is a human experience, a brain product, or in animals instinct.  ( I am trying not to treat love here as transcendent reality) This love can issue in action.

 

Then comes the next level.  What is the meaning of love?  How is it trelate to ethics? Love can be only for the tribe or family and this would then suggest ethical behavior is for the tribe or family and has no meaning outside, one does not need to love the enemy.  So, it one means more than this, for the word love, then one begins a philosophical/anthropolical discussion.

This also raises the question of action and the ground for action.  Why do people go beyond the tribe or help the stranger?  Might there be a connection between what one says and it informs action?  This then connects belief with action.  Having said this one judges belief by outcome, does it lead to better action?  Thus, we are to be sceptical and critical of all stated beliefs and they must be tested in real world situations.  Thus theology's speculative thinking is tested empirically and if it remains only as speculation then it is a dead end.

This still leaves the question of metaphors.  As chansen suggests changing metaphors is a dead end.  The question is what does it refer to and does the change actually reflect that which the metaphor seeks to signify?  This then becomes the metaphysical issue - an examination of the concept of God.  Is it empty or does refer to an ontological reality?

If it matters to living, that is ethical behavior is based on some world view or philosophy then the theological examination of the word God matters, to ground ethical behavior or make unnecessary.  To illustrate in the community if you believe is simple indiviudalism, then ones survial is the end - see those who follow Ayn Rand. Then there are  those who believe in cooperative self interest, that is what benifits me comes out what benifits others. Another view is the  lack of self interest, other interest at the core of behavior.  Notice in each of these there is a ground or philosophy that grounds behavior. But behavior is judged by outcomes which in turn are judged by the orginal premise.  Ayn Rand's followers judge other interests as deficent to the well being of the individual, and the other interest group sees selfishness as counter to the well being of all.

 

So it matters what is the ground of action.  However, one might suggest that some grounds of action like God as so embedded in how we think, secularism, that they no longer are needed.  I think Vosper falls here. Others would suggest God was never the ground of action - pure atheism.  Others might suggest that yes God is now so part of action, secularism, that it has a life of its own, yet there may be still be room for more information, that is the lure of God has become part of the wallpaper but still can efficacious in a lure to more compassion.  Which leads us back to what model of God is operative - either to reject or refine.

If our spirituality were regarded as experiential rather than philosophical, a lot of trouble could be avoided.

 

We do, of course, have explanations and interpretations for our spiritual experience. But, if we regard these interpretations as artistic rather than factual, then we can share each other's creations with each other in the spirit of artistic sharing.

 

However, artistic spiritual expression and artistic sharing becomes difficult when a particular set of artistic interpretations is regarded as fact. 

 

Religion, I think, is about creating meaning. Science is about creating facts. But even scientific facts change as new scientific insights arise. That's why I say "creating" facts.

 

Creativeness is the essence of spirituality. If I were to define "God" in as few words as possible, I'd define IT as the creative power or force of the universe. Godliness is creativeness.

 

Keep on creating, folks, and keep on sharing your creations!

Whitehead said God is the poet of the world.  No either/or for all good philosophy is an aesthetic reflection - it is experiential to its core.