crazyheart
Possessive
Posted on: 05/19/2011 11:03
Reading threads this morning and looking at scriptures for Sunday, it has come to mind that we are "possessive" people. Why do we think that God is ours?That we own God. That no one else has the right to know God. It is not a pleasant trait, imo.
What do you think?
Comments
crazyheart
Posted on: 05/19/2011 11:04
MikePaterson
Posted on: 05/19/2011 12:07
We live in a society that ranks possession above pretty much every other "virtue"... what do you expect?
Possession is a hallucinogenic belief system that in our society is supported by the law of the land.
In fact, of course, we can truly possess nothing; possessions possess us, then move on to possess others. Possessions thrive on our credulity. Possession is the law not least because it is a potent form of social control: a political order under which true believers can lay claim to what they believe is happiness.
The most attractive possession of all is probably god, if you believe in a god capable of being possessed. It's a stupid idea but, hey, if it makes you happy... whoops... if it makes you happy, you are probably doing a lot of damage in this world and contributing to the unhappiness of others (best keep them out of sight).
SG
Posted on: 05/19/2011 12:15
Authorities, peoples, have throughout time and regardless of creed exercised and used their religion as a weapon against others or to protect God from others.
The scriptures for this week are set in a community doing the above. There is a debate going on. There are revisionists and followers of orthodoxy (Jewish not Christian) who view things through that lens and insist the other is wrong and that God needs protected from it. They were words of dogma. They still often are. Yet, they can, in the knowledge of that stuff, become an invitation out of it.
Mendalla
Posted on: 05/19/2011 12:24
We do not and cannot possess "God". "God" may well claim ownership of us in some theologies, but we most certainly do not own "God". How can humans own the fundamental creative source of existence?
Or could we?
Some would argue that "God"/"The Divine"/"The Sacred" is a human creation; a mythological image that has been created and shared in various human cultures. There are many ways of seeing this "God" so we can't each own "God" per se, However, humanity as a whole could own the idea of "God". We could each be said to "own" our personal understanding and experience of the Divine. We could each be said to "own" the images that we attach to the Divine.
So, we may in fact own the Divine collectively and the various images and understandings of The Divine individually.
I would still, however, argue against a possessive form of ownership. "God" as a mythological idea is something that should be shared. Our images of God, though we may "own" them, should be shared and we should be prepared to open ourselves to learning from others' images. If hold our "God" close to our chest and refuse to open that understanding and imagery to others; if we try to use our understanding and imagery of "God" to control others' understanding and imagery of "God"; the we are engaging in the kind of possessiveness that you lament.
Mendalla
Olivet_Sarah
Posted on: 05/19/2011 20:01
I'm going to have a hard time answering this one for you CH, because while I can be possessive of some things, God is not one of them. In fact quite the opposite - I want to share God, I want others to see the Holy and feel its presence. My husband is an atheist, my family are twice-a-year Christians, and my children are too young to understand - so faith for a long time was very much a private practice for me. Going to church and being able to share God without feeling I'm forcing it on anyone or being rude or inconsiderate is one of the richest experiences I have as a Christian.
Dcn. Jae
Posted on: 05/20/2011 04:47
Here is my feeling... many people refuse to see the divine in other groups because they are afraid that if the other has any degree of merit, that their own way has less.
WaterBuoy
Posted on: 05/20/2011 06:01
Grand Topic ...
When we slowly begin to realize that we do not possess God ... all-that-is has us in ID's grip a mortal begins the journey of KISS Principle a vast sense of Uncertainty but yet knowing that you are supported by adequate winds ...
Yet why were we sent to a place where God is wielded like a weapon? So we could learn reverence for this article of fear .. get to know the alien ... the song of a satisfied sol' ... Skor Une? Perhaps just a we bit of satyr (shadow of doubt) with the edge of the quill ... a penne, of 5-sides ... penetrating a difficult spot with a story ... isolated peoples do not learn well without myth. Can we bier such a load of pall, dark Roman fabrication of God as physical bean ... cede for thought? Froma file called Skor Une"
Heh’s Th’Eire …
I did tell you that heh is the Hebrew’n Holy Let Tare …
That’s a cede that can speak to you like awe-id in the field …
Mire word in space of Roman Power …
Like de quill at the side as a weapon of craziness (point of penne?) …
To the aggressive, a word of writ in great satyr …
What can yah do with it?
One must learn, some say to avoid it …
Like flaw in character, or personae …
That wiz’d ole figgy duff …
Manna in Polynesian, bread of the mienδ …
As rye as you may find IĐ, as field of time, frothy!
Do you know how few people understand …
The symbol Đ, or đ as crossed-∂ …
Swirl of beginning, chaos or spin drift …
The essence of satisfied soul in the tree?
The Roman Jew hated locus, or loci as hommoe ‘ve l’aural …
The Hebrew sin or shin, a’legge as Çi, as psi (ψ) inept unes fork …
One could stand on as mire th’ …
The ripple beneath your feet, or myth …
You refused to follow to a starting point …
Like dark pool of Sah Rae under the Sirocco void …
What some call at present the Big African Desert, Sa-hara, or Sa Haris of old …
Like the mind Sa’ ID will harass you until you reflect upon IT …
With reverence as it surrounds you towards the ends …
Both of eM as the blood line, drawn without!
There are those that call this ontological …
A generally unknown expression like epistemology …
A study of all ends that you see going …
As’ driven bi holy winds …
In appreciation of the holy Ba’Lem …
The soul-heart connecting that causes you to think …
If the theological process has not been denied!
Thus the CPU, or Central Intelligence Unit …
A singular thing that we draw upon …
Druid of past tongues, shadow “ı” …
That we didn’t wish to know in biblical legend …
The monstrous “Ai” …
Outlawed in King Jaimes England …
Drawing from Gael, or Celtic myth of the storm …
Spindrift?
That’s what counters love’s Dagon …
That has to be dispersed with Karen Th’aught …
As Circe of friends …
Hot characters to say the least as they are seared there …
In difficult spot, a stone that will fall in the end …
To knowing all, coming as ash ock when you see emotions passing …
And the prodigal question bean asked:
Meis chill’d of god(s) …
What did you learn while out hear’n …
In that larger dark pool …
That seems to haunt you to the ends in the dark as Shadow …
With lessons on how not to do things when approaching heaven!
That’s delicate eh, like Eros & White Lace, sometime spelled L’och …
In Heh bruin variant, symbol of communion that draws be witch’sends/sen’s’ people of divine writ’ learn Ed!
MikePaterson
Posted on: 05/20/2011 08:14
I thought the object of faith was to open oneself to possession by god (assuming there is one).
But, if there is one, and god is great enough to be worthy of godliness, aren't we all possessed by god?
Either way, it seems to me impossible to claim more than a personal commitment to god. My commitment can be greater or lesser than it was yesterday... but I cannot know the quality or strength of another's. That would have to be between god and that other person.
Mendalla
Posted on: 05/20/2011 15:57
Here is my feeling... many people refuse to see the divine in other groups because they are afraid that if the other has any degree of merit, that their own way has less.
Got to agree with you on this one, MC. Not just other groups either. Other PEOPLE. When we start to see a "liberal" or a "conservative" or a "Baptist" or a "fundie" or whatever instead of a person, we're failing to see the divine in that person. We've tried to make them an other. The UU first principle is stated in humanistic terms: "the inherent worth and dignity of each person", but it could just as easily be worded in more spiritual terms: "the divine spark of each person".
Mendalla
Dcn. Jae
Posted on: 05/20/2011 16:32
Got to agree with you on this one, MC. Not just other groups either. Other PEOPLE. When we start to see a "liberal" or a "conservative" or a "Baptist" or a "fundie" or whatever instead of a person, we're failing to see the divine in that person. We've tried to make them an other. The UU first principle is stated in humanistic terms: "the inherent worth and dignity of each person", but it could just as easily be worded in more spiritual terms: "the divine spark of each person".
Mendalla
Yes, I agree Mendalla, well said. It is important, I believe, to strive to see the inner light shining in every human heart.
Berserk
Posted on: 05/20/2011 16:34
The Bible teaches that we possess God in the sense that God's Spirit dwells within us. What troubles you, I think, is the presumption of pontificating who does and does not possess God in this sense. Jesus, of course, taught that our experience of God's presence must be preceded by God's hidden process of drawing us to Himsel (John 6:44). According to God's sovereignty, God draws some and not others whenever God chooses. But Christians are not entitled to pre-judge whom God is and is not in the process of drawing to Himself.
On the other hand, not all religions and spiritual quests are the same or equal in spiritual depth and their potential to promote pure unconditional love and a grace-based life. Jesus implies that one's status as "a child of God" is not unconditional, bur is rather dependent of our willingness to love our enemy and pray for our persecutors (Matthew 5:43-44). .So as Christians we must affirm that some (but not others) "possess God;" but we must not take it upon ourselves to assign specific people to each group. Yet we must embrace Jesus' great commission which presumes that many outsiders do not possess God and therefore need to be discipled (Matthew 28:16-20).
crazyheart
Posted on: 05/20/2011 18:13
need to be discipled (Matthew 28:16-20).
explain please
Mendalla
Posted on: 05/20/2011 18:24
need to be discipled (Matthew 28:16-20).
explain please
Actually, I thought Berserk's post was pretty clear (unless I'm misreading him badly). While it is not the place of Christians to say who does or does not possess God (or knowledge of God), Jesus' "Great Commission" from this passage in Matthew calls on Christians to spread the Good News so that those who do not have that knowledge can receive it. Pretty straight-forward, I thought.
Mendalla
crazyheart
Posted on: 05/20/2011 22:24
Didn' t he say to be" disciplined"? Or am I reading it wrong?
WaterBuoy
Posted on: 05/21/2011 07:38
Ah, Mendalla, MC ... the myth of the mixed metaphor ... discipline ... the Pæn of learning (flay'ðoubt)? Nothing to beat it!
Show me your way Lord teach me your path's Psalm 25:4 ... at hand!
Mendalla
Posted on: 05/21/2011 17:04
Discipled is Berserk's word. I assume it's the past tense of the verb "to disciple", which I don't think is a real verb but, hey, it gets his meaning across.
According to Bible Gateway, the actual passage (in the NIV) reads:
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
No discipline, but a command to make disciples of all nations, which concurs with Berserk's "discipled".
Mendalla
crazyheart
Posted on: 05/21/2011 18:28
Thank you Mendalla for clearing that up for me.