« Obama advertising you can try at home today! | TheraP's Blog | Helpful Hints - for blogging with the new system »
Resolved: There is no more than one God
You may be an atheist, you may be agnostic, you may have whatever faith you choose, but I think we'd all agree that whatever the word "God" means, all religions address the same God.
It just drives me nuts that these fundamentalist Christians want to view Muslims as believing in a "different God." This is patently absurd. And it spreads bigotry.
I understand that Buddhists are not theists. I understand that Hindus have a variety of "gods," yet underlying Hinduism is Vedanta, which asserts the One that cannot be named. As I see it then, Hinduism, allows for different manifestations of God, but believes in an underlying oneness.
I respect you if you're atheist. I respect you if you're agnostic. But I simply can't respect efforts to marginalize or brand as somehow demonic people whose faith calls "God" by another name (for example Allah.... or Yahweh).
This dreadful election season is spreading so many lies and seeding so many false and dangerous ideas. And I just had to confront this one!
It just drives me nuts that these fundamentalist Christians want to view Muslims as believing in a "different God." This is patently absurd. And it spreads bigotry.
I understand that Buddhists are not theists. I understand that Hindus have a variety of "gods," yet underlying Hinduism is Vedanta, which asserts the One that cannot be named. As I see it then, Hinduism, allows for different manifestations of God, but believes in an underlying oneness.
I respect you if you're atheist. I respect you if you're agnostic. But I simply can't respect efforts to marginalize or brand as somehow demonic people whose faith calls "God" by another name (for example Allah.... or Yahweh).
This dreadful election season is spreading so many lies and seeding so many false and dangerous ideas. And I just had to confront this one!
Advertisement
Rec'd!
I thought I had heard everything, until I heard "that one."
Then I watched "Head of State" with Chris Rock last nite -- where he becomes the first black president -- and the opposition candidate peppers his speeches with "God Bless America! ... and no one else!" I nearly snorted my iced tea through my nose at that one.
Amazing! Really!
October 13, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Islam is Christianity+1. The usual "bible," plus Mohammed.
That's what freaks them out: Christ is a Jew, but Mohammed isn't, and they can't stand Jews, so having to deal in addition with someone not sufficiently white causes their heads to implode.
Reminds me of the news report in the "Buffalo Express" when Mark Twain was its owner/editor about a skull that was found in a swamp. Of it he said:
"It was of the usual kind: there was nothing in it."
October 13, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Islam is Christianity+1. The usual "bible," plus Mohammed.
That's what freaks them out: Christ is a Jew, but Mohammed isn't, and they can't stand Jews, so having to deal in addition with someone not sufficiently white causes their heads to implode.
Reminds me of the news report in the "Buffalo Express" when Mark Twain was its owner/editor about a skull that was found in a swamp. Of it he said:
"It was of the usual kind: there was nothing in it."
October 13, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP,
Seeing that different beliefs use the idea of the One doesn't mean they are using the idea the same way.
It is amongst the avowedly monotheist that the notion of the jealous god provides the grounds for so much rancor between different believers.
There is much paradox and counterpoint in the language proclaiming certainty about true faith.
Pascal fought for a certain interpretation of Christianity his whole adult life. Upon his death, there was discovered a list of sentences that was always carried close to his heart. One of those sentences said: "My God is your God."
Such a statement can be heard as an acceptance of larger world than oneself or the grounds to judge that world.
October 13, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are your thoughts on this article from the NYTimes yesterday:
Any religion or faith can be twisted into something hateful by zealots and charlatans - political dogmas not excluded.
October 13, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I belive she answered your question in the article:
"I respect you if you're atheist. I respect you if you're agnostic. But I simply can't respect efforts to marginalize or brand as somehow demonic people whose faith calls "God" by another name (for example Allah.... or Yahweh). "
October 13, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It makes me very sad that people feel threatened if others have different religious beliefs or even strongly held irreligious beliefs.
I hope that answers your question.
I love our Constitutional separation of church and state. I honor all who sincerely practice a faith or sincerely hold no faith at all. But I am deeply, deeply troubled by people who demonize a faith that is different from their own, or demonize someone for holding any faith at all, or demonize someone for choosing no faith. Violence or the threat of violence is never something holy. Never.
October 13, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The God of Muhammad is the God of Abraham and of Moses. Christians and Jews have more in common with Muslims than many of the hardcore wingnuts will ever admit because these divisions keep winning them elections.
What I'm wondering is how long it will take for a real Muslim to actually have a chance at being elected president. It's taken black people what, 150 years almost, to have an honest chance in a mainstream candidate?
Cranky old white men have had their go. Time for some new perspectives in government.
October 13, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
What really kills me is that the division between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity is solely that of the Messiah. All three believe in God's covenant with Abraham. The division between Judaism and Islam comes from who the rightful heir to that covenant is.
Islam follows the tribal lineage of Ishmael, Abraham's first and according to Judaism, illegitimate, son from his concubine Hagar. Judaism follows the tribal lineage of Isaac, Abraham's second son and first from his wife Sarah.
Judaism teaches the Messiah has yet to come. Islam teaches Mohammad was the Messiah or Great Prophet. Christianity teaches Jesus was the Messiah or Great Prophet.
I agree with TheraP that any claims to ownership over the one true God between these three religions is absurd. However, what strikes me as even more absurd is the bloodshed and hatred based upon a two and half millennia old sibling rivalry.
October 13, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You nailed it!
October 13, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post! I would disagree only on one point:
If I'm not mistaken, tradition at the time allowed that when a wife was barren, she could offer her husband one of her servants to bear a child in her stead. That should mean that Ishmael would have been considered a legitimate heir, yes?
In any event, there is in Judaic tradition a curious theme of favoring younger sons, perhaps because of this Ishmael/Isaac thing: Cain and Abel, Esau and Jacob, Jacob's 11th son Joseph, Aaron and Moses -- there are probably more, that's just what comes to mind for me.
October 14, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Humans are tribal animals. Read THE NAKED APE.
Religions provide us with a tribe to give us belonging. The Gods are different in that the deities worshiped ask different things from their followers.
No different than even the community at TPM which has it's own versions of the tribe. Attack one, you attack all. We are wired that way by evolution.
October 13, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we'd all agree that whatever the word "God" means, all religions address the same God.
If two groups use the word "God" in mutually incompatible ways, then how can they be talking about the same God? It makes more sense to say that some (perhaps all) religions talk about "God" but are in fact describing non-existent entities.
To say they are all merely alternate ways of referring to the Flying Spaghetti Monster is sheer blasphemy.
October 13, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember the story of the 10 blind men and the elephant? Yes, it is possible to have mutually incompatible ideas of the same thing.
October 13, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we would all do well to remember that without doubt there can be no learning. This is one reason why the Evangelicals remain so obstinately stupid.
October 14, 2008 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
And we would all do well to remember that without doubt there can be no learning. This is one reason why the Evangelicals remain so obstinately stupid.
October 14, 2008 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, the story of the blind men and the elephant is itself a religious parable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant
October 14, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love that story. Whenever I hear it trotted out, this is what I think.
First guy: "Hey, I got the trunk. Whadda you got?"
Second guy: "The trunk? You can't have the trunk. I have the trunk."
First guy: "Uh oh."
October 14, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thera, it is ironic that we have different takes on the same parable.
You think that this parable shows that we are talking about the same god and we are all just talking about different aspects of it, convinced the other is wrong.
I read the parable and think: they were all wrong because of their parochial vantage point.
You said: "Yes, it is possible to have mutually incompatible ideas of the same thing." I don't think anybody disagrees, but it is also no proof that any of them have it right. You are starting with the axiom that there is one god and then making the evidence fit, and where it doesn't fit, sweeping the differences under the rug of this parable.
October 14, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you go back to the title of the post, I said "no more than one god." But I never said less.
I have no pipeline to the truth. What concerns me is when people are demonized for their beliefs. When they put people down for believing or for not believing or for whatever truths they hold to.
I myself, yes, believe in God. But I'm pushing that belief on anybody. I'm "proving" anything - because frankly I don't think it can be proven and it's not an "intellectual exercise."
Thanks for taking time to respond here.
October 14, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
CORRECTION: That should read "I am NOT pushing" my beliefs on anyone.
My only concern in this post was to address the wrongs that are being inflicted on some groups in this election.
I know there are many who have no faith. And yet lead lives of goodness and decency and care for their fellow person. Fine by me.
October 14, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tribal loyalty, imagined or otherwise, is undoubtedly a huge element of human interaction on all levels. But that tribalism can be broken - or at least suppressed. Look at modern cities. Jews and Arabs live together in relative tolerance in New York. Protestants and Catholics spent a millennium slaughtering each other in Europe, but I grew up in a tiny Midwestern town with streets lined with churches of all denominations.
Is it nationalism that takes the place of the smaller tribal instincts? Is it because we identify ourselves as Americans before we do race or religion or ethnicity? I don't know. All I know is I've seen it work and one evolutionary trait we all too often overlook as human beings is our ability to learn and better the world around us.
I for one think that in the end this evolutionary trait will win over any evolutionary trait for petty tribalism.
October 13, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, not quite -- Protestantism hasn't been around that long; Europeans found other reasons to slaughter one another before it came on the scene. But your point is well taken.
I wouldn't say that the smaller tribalisms have completely disappeared, but I think you're right in suggesting that there is a hierarchy of tribal identifications, and which one we act on at any given time depends on the level of the perceived threat from the "outside."
October 14, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was raised Unitarian, who as you may know believe in, at most, one God.
October 13, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see why a single god is any more plausible than multiple gods. Let me say up front that if you're a believer, that's fine by me. I just don't see why monotheism should be preferred. As far as I'm concerned, polytheism has more explanatory power and is a lot more fun.
October 13, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I would posit that the Divine runs through all of them. One Divine. (many appearances)
Which reminds me of a joke: "I am DeVine and you are De Branches."
October 13, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
If by "divine" you mean "supernatural," it's true that all gods would be divine. But so what? That's like positing that all humans are human. It doesn't get you anywhere because it's tautological. That fact alone won't lead you to a single god anymore than our shared humanity means that we are only one human.
October 13, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah.... but that's different. We humans are separate. But how do you know the Divine is separate? Think on that a bit.
October 13, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you know that it is one?
There is no advantage here.
What I am suggesting is that "divine" is a property just like every other property in the world. Everything that is yellow has the property of being yellow, but that doesn't mean all things that are yellow are a single thing.
How do you understand the term "divine"?
October 13, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Divine, by definition, cannot be a "property in the world." Divine, by definition is transcendent.
October 13, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
By "the world" I mean all things that exist. So, if God or Gods exist, they are by definition part of the world in my understanding.
That might seem like cheating, but you have done the same thing. You have chosen a definition of "divine" that ensures your view wins out. I hope you see that this is circular. You're defining divine in a way that it is different from all other properties, and you escape explaining the difference by saying that it is different by definition.
In any case, if things that are divine are not in the world, then you open up a lot of different problems. Not the least of which is that if God is divine, then he is not in the world, and therefore has no interaction with humanity.
October 14, 2008 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Small correction: I don't think my definition of "the world" leads to any circularity in the way your definition of "divine" does.
October 14, 2008 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not positing "existence" of God. Nor can I deny Holy Mystery. But neither can I explain it either. We're talking something way beyond our ken. I'm not really into speculating, so I'm not terribly interested in theology. But I think we at times are "touched" by the Holy, whatever that means. We're talking "Sacred." Whereof we cannot speak. I think we need to leave it at that. I can't "argue" it. I feel "grasped" and "held" in a way I cannot explain. I believe you are too - even if you have no sense of that whatsoever. Peace. Shalom. Salam.
October 14, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's a story (probably apocryphal) about one of the past Popes visiting a foreign country. The Pope's party comes upon some people praying to their small-g gods in the form of craven images. Some papal lackey says, "Padre, do you see those poor heathens worshipping their false idols?" The Pope turns to the lackey and says, "Don't you think God knows who they're praying to?"
In Buddhism, we say we don't believe in God not because we don't believe in God, but because the notion of a Divine Creator completely removed from His creation is absurd. If God created Man in His own Image, then Man is God. Is a wave the ocean, or is it apart from the ocean? Is ice water or is it ice? Can it be possible that God, being Everything, decided to create something that is apart from Everything? If so, then God is truly insane.
If you want to know the No-God of Buddhism, look inward and cut through every self-imposed delusion. Rip out the roots. Give up the field.
If you want an opening to understanding the God of Hinduism (Brahman), read the section in the Bhagavad Gita where Krshna reveals himself to Arjuna. Reading these passages (or the Lotus Sutra, or The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana, or the Diamond Sutra, or The Heart Sutra, or any number of others) with a diligent and open mind IS practice.
"One foolish passing thought makes one an ordinary man, while a wise second thought makes one a Buddha." - Hui-neng, Sixth Patriarch of Buddhism.
"If our Father's realm was the sky, birds would belong there before you. If it was the sea, the fish would precede you. But our Father's realm is within you. You will know God when you know yourself." - Jesus of Nazareth, First Patriarch of Christianity.
October 13, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good comments!
At the core, the Cloud of Unknowing and koan practice are very very similar. Very few are called to this.
Not so many gods, Nor one god either. Just throwing one's life energy into pursuing the wellspring to its utter source.
Ad diem tendo.....
October 13, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. I totally agree.
October 14, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lux, I've never been sure about recommending (or even mentioning) The Cloud. I've never told a soul about it because of the exhortation at the beginning:
"In the name of the Fader and of the Sone and of the Holy Goost. I charge thee and I beseche thee, with as moche power and vertewe as the bonde of charité is sufficient to suffre, whatsoever thou be that this book schalt have in pos-session, outher bi propirté outher by keping, by bering as messenger or elles bi bor-owing, that in as moche as in thee is by wille and avisement, neither thou rede it, ne write it, ne speke it, ne yit suffre it be red, wretyn, or spokyn, of any or to any, bot yif it be of soche one or to soche one that hath (bi thi supposing) in a trewe wille and by an hole entent, purposed him to be a parfite folower of Criste, not only in actyve leving, bot in the sovereinnest pointe of contemplatif leving the whiche is possible by grace for to be comen to in this present liif of a parfite soule yit abiding in this deedly body; and therto that doth that in him is, and bi thi supposing, hath do longe tyme before, for to able him to contemplative levyng by the vertuous menes of active levyng. For elles it acordeth nothing to him. And, over this, I charge thee and I beseche thee, bi the autorité of charité, that yif any soche schal rede it, write it, or speke it, or elles here it be red or spokin, that thou charge hem, as I do thee, for to take hem tyme to rede it, speke it, write it, or here it, al over."
Do you think the warning was because the author was worried about being excommunicated (or worse) or do you think it's for the same reason that Buddhists are forbidden from evangelizing?
October 14, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those who are meant to profit from hearing will hear, those who are not, will not; or at least that's my gut feeling.
I think the original prohibition was that the practice of the Cloud, like any intensive spiritual practice leads the practicioner into the realms of makyo and "wrong path" decisions. Years ago while sitting, I found myself surrounded by light, apparitionally infinite in extent. A very pleasant state actually, but I was well-trained in caution and let it expire on its own time. Someone, could easily try to perpetuate that state intentionally with bad (or ultimately sterile) results. Thus its best not to go it alone, unless already cautioned about what distractions may arise....
No one ever has given me an explanation of why Buddhists don't proselytize..but that prohibition or custom, feels right. Kind of a don't interfere forcibly with someone else's path. Better to show by example.
In any case, I hope I haven't goofed up by giving my opinion of the deep equivalence between contemplative practices...
October 14, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Lux, I think you're right on all points. If we're meant to find it, we find it. If we're not, we don't. So no problem. :)
I know what you mean about the dangers of practicing without guidance. Anyone who spends any time sitting knows the feeling of pushing past those sometimes bizarre or "miraculous" experiences that percolate up from the mud while you're meditating (and sometimes when you're not). My standard one was doors and walls falling down. I'd hear these thunderous crashes that were so real it was hard not to jump up to see what had happened. If you're not forewarned or guided to ignore these things, you could end up short a few marbles and in a really stupid trap of your own design (Enyadatta's missing head comes to mind). I know a few mystics and shamans who were more than happy to give up the search for gold because they'd fooled themselves into thinking they found silver. Just sit. Just sit. Just sit. Just sit.
As to the prohibition against evangelizing, I can't think of a way to say it that doesn't break the rule.
October 14, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
No matter what you name it, I think we are "drawn" from within - and thus there is no need for us to presume that we'd know how or in which direction someone needs to be "drawn."
You see the same calm in a zen monk that you see in some Christian contemplatives. Nothing like sitting.
But many would flee.
October 14, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the great feelings I get is when I can learn something from (not about) another religion and apply it to my own faith.
For those interested in those kind of cross-faith insights, I heartily recommend Stephen Mitchell's "The Gospel According to Jesus," which borrows from Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, and Hindu texts to explain and illustrate the teachings of Jesus.
October 14, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You grok," Smith repeated firmly. "I am explain. I did not have the word. You grok. Anne groks. I grok. The grasses under my feet grok in happy beauty. But I needed the word. The word is God."
"Go ahead."
Mike pointed triumphantly at Jubal. "Thou art God!"
October 13, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you say "the Divine runs through all of them" you adopt a definition of "the Divine" that makes your point of view correct. But it's a definition of "the Divine" that is explicitly denied by many of the groups you're talking about. So if you're right, they're wrong. And if any one of them is right, then you're wrong.
It's as if you think you have some sort of privileged view of The Truth lets you see where they're mistaken (the parts where they deny what you are asserting) as well as the fragments of their belief systems that they've somehow managed to get right (where they capture something about this "Divine" that they have in common with all the other monotheistic religions).
But many of them also think they have some sort of privileged view of The Truth. Evangelicals, for example, would (condescendingly) say that they can see where you are mistaken and also where you have some small glimpse of what is true, etc. You could both be wrong, but you can't both be right.
Look at it this way. Religion X has a view of God that says that adherents of religion Y are so deeply wrong that they will be tortured for eternity for rejecting the True God. Religion Y has a view of God that says that adherents of religion X are so deeply wrong that they will be tortured for eternity for rejecting the True God.
Suppose religion X is correct. Adherents of religion Y are all going to be tortured for eternity for not believing in the True God. For that matter, adherents of religions A, B, C, ... U, V, W, and Z are also damned for rejecting the True God. Does it make any sense at all to say that adherents of the non-X religions were all really worshiping "the same God" as the adherents of religion X?
October 13, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a strictly logical approach to the issue, but I don't think it really solves the problem. Here's the deal:
Jews trace their religion to Abraham and worship the God that asked him to sacrifice his son.
Christians trace their religion to Abraham and worship the God that asked him to sacrifice his son.
Muslims trace their religion to Abraham and worship the God that asked him to sacrifice his son.
There are traditions and beliefs on which all three religions are based. They all say that they worship the God of Abraham, but Christians believe that Jews have a connection to that god and Muslims believe both Christians and Jews have a connection to that god. And the reason is simple: They see themselves as respecting successive waves of god's message.
It's quite possible that there is only one God. Let's assume it is a fact for a second. Then the Jewish prophets gave god's first message, Jesus gave god's second, and Mohammed gave god's third. (Baha'i like to think that they know God's most recent message.)
The fact that they don't agree on the message doesn't imply that there is more than one god. It just means that they heard different parts of the story.
October 13, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's one belief system, but it's a belief system that others explicitly reject. At least some evangelicals would say instead that the "subsequent revelations" are actually lies from the devil, intended to lead people away from the true god.
The fact that they don't agree may mean that they've heard different parts of the story. Or it may mean that some have embraced true claims and others have embraced false claims. In fact, to assert that the subsequent claims are true is necessarily to assert that some (such as evangelicals) are embracing false beliefs. Which is fine to assert, but it's not an assertion from a privileged view of The Truth. Just one person's opinion.
October 13, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's right, Bob, but that does not suggest that there is more than one god. It's quite possible that people can all worship the same god, but some of them do it incorrectly.
October 14, 2008 6:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Jihads all paint a different picture. You can even find Catholics going after Protestants, Shiites going after Sunnis, and various sects of Jews going after each other.
Even the notion that the US is a Judeo-Christian entity is relatively new.
If you really want to find out what the dogma teaches, ask a dogmatically pious person of some religion if a non-believer will get into Heaven (e.g. the same Heaven the believer believes he is going to). The answers may surprise you.
October 14, 2008 3:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you'll learn more from mystics than from dogma.
October 14, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I personally gain little from either. But in any case, it's dogma that runs religion, not mysticism.
The world's religions that have thrived have done so because they are best at organizing their communities in a long term way. In many respects, until the modern nation-state, religion was a key organizing principle of society - providing justification for social structure, giving authority to law. There is very little mysticism in that.
October 14, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink