I am not that much different than an Atheist, in that I have ceased to believe in the traditional god(s) as espoused by traditional Christians, Jews, Moslems, and others, and in the accoutrements surrounding, such as angels, demons, Satan, etc.
However, I see another God that has been there all along, waiting to be discovered, and yet, has not been discovered by the bulk of people seeking God. I feel that those responsible for guiding Christian followers to God have instead done as the Jewish religious authorities in Yeshua's day did, that is, maintained a religious system that hinders people from discovering the true God.
This God, which I name, GOD AS THE UNIVERSE AS AN ORGANISM, has been in existence all along. Few have recognized this God, though.
One old testament name, though, seems to portray this God pretty well, and it isn't Jehovah-Jirah, or El-Shaddai or any of those.
It is, as I have mentioned numerous times, YHVH, The Tetragrammaton, rendered in King James and others as LORD. It is all consonants, from a time when Hebrew had no vowels. This name has persisted without consonants through all the changes to the language. Certain Christians want to add vowels and made it a name, such as Jehovah, or Yahweh.
A name would diminish the word. Someone, somewhere, saw this word for what it really was, and maintained it as a "name" for God. It is, however, more of a description, if even that. Referring to the Hebrew source word, you garner the meaning, "to exist" from it, from which I further glean the description, "EXISTENCE". The original people who saw this name for God understood that it meant more than what anyone can see or experience.
It is like the Burning Bush telling Moses to tell the elders of captive Israel that I AM THAT I AM has sent him. It is the ultimate Existence of Existence. It is a subtle hint that shouts for those who can hear of what God really is through the eons.
EXISTENCE -- all that exists.
Mull on this a minute. Everything. Matter, antimatter, all forces and occurrences from eternity to eternity, all humankind and every thought, word and deed thereof, whether for good or for evil. This all has been and is God.
All that exists.
This is God. Remember that the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem contained NOTHING. No image or anything else. The Ark of the Covenant was close by, to remind the people of the original contract with god, per the Book of Exodus.
However, God is typified as . . . nothing.
Really, not nothing. Other temples' holy of holies contained an image of the god housed there. Jerusalem's Temple did not.
Subtle hint, just as the appellation, YHVH is, that God is more than we can see or experience, that God cannot be imaged. This is the idea of the first precept (commandment) -- "Thou shalt not make an image of anything to be worshipped", better rendered, as far as I am concerned, as, "I, Existence, your God, cannot be imaged; nothing on Earth on in the Heavens can accurately represent me, for I am all that is and all that is is in me."
Judaism, as far as I know, did not image God; it codified the path to God, when God is all around. So people trod the codified path, which acted as a tunnel through God, not a path to God.
Christianity, however, decided to image God. Taking Yeshua (Jesus) and his mother, Miriam (Mary) and Joseph and the disciples, they canonized them into images to be worshipped, and imaged god as resembling Greek and Roman portrayals of Zeus and Jupiter.
They also ignored Yeshua's representation of God as being neutral in human affairs and continued the tradition of a tribal god that would protect their particular band of believers.
Now, I want to ask a question: What god(s) is/are most believable -- one(s) represented by having human or near human-form and intervening in the affairs of humans (for which there really is no demonstrable data) and favoring one group of humans over others -- or that which is Existence -- that is, whatever you experience and encounter around you -- and is a totally neutral entity, but which you can worship freely by holding sacred whatever you encounter or experience?
Let me say that I have experienced what could be considered the "paranormal", various encounters and personal experiences that lead me to understand that there is something beyond the realm of our physical senses. I believe that the revelation that I am relating to you is one aspect of these encounters.
It is the god that emerges from classical Christian, Moslem and Jewish thought, not to mention those in other major religions, such as Hinduism, and any imagery that arises from other religions, that Atheists and others reject. For good reason: it is a god arising from the mythos of previous religions and pantheons, as mythical as its predecessors: Zeus, Jupiter, Thor, whatever.
It is an image, rather than an existence.
The basic premise of the God I relate is that it is all around, it is truly infinite. A major attribute of this God is that it evolves. Let me use another word -- Logos, translated in the first chapter of the Gospel of John as Word. The Greek word means, "expression, purpose", to which I have added the synonym, "Intent".
Now, I am entering a realm of thinking that can be beyond comprehension -- and the entire picture is. We have God as the Universe as an Organism. The entire Universe. We have within that Universe, an intent. This God as the Universe as an Organism ("God" for short) thinks. The entire Universe. The entire Organism. The Universe is the ultimate organism, developing, growing, changing, with intent. No one can attribute human form or mind or purpose or thought or anything human to this God. This God has no attributes as we perceive them. IT JUST IS! Can you understand that? No one can fathom this God.
And yet, as we understand the history of this God, from what we understand about it, from the Big Bang through the formation of galaxies and stars and the myriad objects of matter, anti-matter, black holes, dark matter, to the smallest things, parts of atoms and small pieces of matter, and things yet undiscovered by humans, we can see evolution. Humans, as far as is known, are the highest form of sentience on Earth (other sentient beings have yet to be discovered, yet are likely). Existence on Earth seems to have been moving to the point at which we now are (and probably beyond).
We see also the development of Human Civilization toward better forms (Democracy, etc), and perceptions broadening and acceptance increasing in Society (although this varies from society to society, and sometimes seems nonexistent). Humans are becoming better learned in relation to human relations. Old, archaic, almost prehistoric attitudes are disappearing, mainly, it seems, in Europe (some in the U.S., but not much [witness our government's world view or the penal and court systems]). This slow, persistent improvement gives me hope that archaic perceptions will eventually dissipate in other parts of the world.
It seems like a race, though, between reasonable perceptions, explanations, and solutions, and the old that still dominate too much of the world (Somalia, various cultures and religions, even our own), between an enlightenment that eventually will bring about the peace we all have hoped for and a new Dark Age that could immerse Humankind into the worst, most critical time in History.
I have to refer back to Europe, though, the period from after the fall of the Roman Empire, to the end of World War II, when competition and nationalism kept that continent in a state of constant war. The nations' nationalistic fervor fueled many a conflict and made different enemies and different allies at different times. After the devastation wrought by Hitler's Germany and the resultant response, it seems the European nations left all that behind and seem to be working toward better, broader mutual experience and cooperation in many things.
We in the U.S. also seem to be moving in a more positive direction, many seeing new answers to old questions and concerns. But many seem to be clinging to old, archaic and untenable "solutions" to these problems.
I see an entire picture, however, of progress no matter how slow, and feel that this will continue. But sometimes I fail to see how it can.
INTENT --the Universe is filled with INTENT. I actually feel that way. And that helps me to maintain some semblance of optimism. I can see through history the Universe moving from a point to a point, although it is from an eternity to an eternity really -- and yet, within this narrow span of "time" that we can see, I feel that there is that movement.
It is interesting. I took a test recently to see what "religion" I am closest to. My views tested as being consistent with the "nature" religions, like Druidism, etc. Native American thought. All is all and All is in all.
What is sacred is the immediate surroundings. Every rock, tree, animal, person. The ultimate message of God is to hold sacred whatever you experience or encounter, including yourself. For you are the ultimate of your existence. You must hold yourself as the most sacred; then hold others just as sacred. Can you do that? We all fall short.
See what this God is? It is an ongoing experience. Not static as is the old religion, its belief system and its god.
I embrace the God I have attempted to relate here. No one can even infinitesimally accurately relate what this God is. The best any of us can do is experience it.
We need to experience it fully.
The old god doesn't let us do that.
In a way, gardening is simple. You plant and the plants grow and you reap the fruits of your labors.
"As ye sow, so shall ye reap."
True.
But it's more than that. One must choose a location where sunshine is abundant, the soil is relatively fertile and suited for planting, without rocks or sand or other such substances, and without a slope that allows for runoff.
One must then prepare the soil, which entails a fertilizing substance of some sort, and softening the soil by digging and turning the soil, then raking the plot smooth and somewhat level.
One then chooses what plants to grow, assessing how many of what kind will fit in the size plot set up for the garden. Then one reads the labels and information to find when, how deep and how far apart to plant the seeds or plants (on smaller plots, a little hedging won't hurt and will allow for more varieties of plants). Then one plants.
Working the soil at this stage and subsequent stages is important, with plants placed in recesses so that water will gather around them, and the ground between rows of seeds chopped up with a tined instrument so that water can soak in and air also allowed under the surface of the ground.
Once the plants have started growing substantially, the ground must continually be tilled to keep the soil loose and measures taken to restrict weeds and other unwanted plant and animal pests so that the plants will grow better.
Pests also have to be kept away from the fruit.
The better one does this, the better the results.
Gardening is honest. You must put in a certain amount of effort and knowledge to reap a return. The more and better you put in, the more and better the result.
See what gardening teaches?
Is this from a faith point of view, or a misinterpretation of scripture. Was Paul a sexist?
Let's look at the times in which the Apostle Paul lived. Even in the most "enlightened" societies, such as Greece, women had no rights. Voting was reserved for freed men.
Women were on the same par as slaves.
We see in the book of Acts that women were elected ("ye shall choose from among yourselves") as deaconesses, I would suppose on a par with male Deacons. We see through the Gospels and Acts, certain women holding importance in the narratives.
But when Paul writes to the Greek world, he "hedges his bets" regarding women, and for good reason: the body of believers would not be looked upon kindly by a society that held women as less than third class citizens. He had to protect the fledgling congregations.
I think if you read between the lines of some passages, you can see this. Particularly the phrase, "It is not permitted" regarding women "speaking in the churches". I think he refers to restrictions of contemporary society.
Thus, this proscription is limited to the time in which it was written.
I think we need another look at women's roles in the Church as a whole.
