I don't mean to pick on atheist; I used to be one. From that experience I know that many atheists still cares about a god deep down inside, they are just mad at him for the shape the world is in. Actually, they get very emotional about it and wonder what kind of god would create a world like this with the wars, murders, earthquakes, corruption, etc etc etc. Their response is to pretend He doesn't exist--kind of like that is going to hurt His feelings or something.
What finally turned me around was finding a God to which I could relate. Not some holy-roller God who requires daily adoration, but a more practical, executive-minded Being who works with a purpose and enlists attuned thinkers to formulate a plan and then create the programs to carry it out. If interviewed by a Fox News reporter, let's say tough-talking Bill O'Reilly, about the current state of worldly affairs, this CEO God would respond calmly and with great insight into and loving understanding of the human plight.
O'Reilly: "So, God, we've only got a couple of minutes. But, tell me, how did we get in this mess anyway? You know there are some folks who think it's time you get ousted. They'd rather have no god then this."
God: "The trend of our modern civilization, in spite of all its mistakes and errors, is to produce thinkers. Education, books, travel, in its many and varied forms, enunciation of science and of philosophy, and the driving inner urge which we call religious, but which is, in fact, the drive toward truth and its mental verification--all these factors have one objective, and this is to produce thinkers. Given a real thinker, you have an incipient creator and (unconsciously at first, but consciously later on) one who will wield power in order to "precipitate" or cause to emerge objective forms. These forms will either be in line with Divine purpose and plan and, consequently, will further the cause of evolution, or they will be animated by personal intent, characterized by separated, selfish purpose, and constitute, therefore, part of the work of retro-active forces and the material element."
O'Reilly: "Then, what you are saying is WE are responsible for all this, not you? I find that hard to believe and don't think those in favor of your demise will buy it. But, God, that's all the time we have today. Maybe we can have you back again some other time to develop this further. Thank you for joining us."
God: "Thank you for having me, Bill, and be sure to watch closely the world unfolding before you. It will certainly be full of surprises as more thinkers come on-board to my plan over the next twenty years or so."
(Unusually, Bill decided to let God have the last word, and, because of that courtesy, God smiled knowing that O'Reilly might become a thinker in his next lifetime or two.)
God's excerpt is taken from A Treatise on White Magic, A. Bailey, pp. 551 - 52.
Showing posts with label atheists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheists. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
God is No Wimp
Yesterday on our annual Christmas trek to Racine, Wisconsin to pick up Mom Schirott, Jim raised a protest about an atheist organization from Madison that made it their business to erect a pyramid structure called the Pyramid of Freedom in Racine's Memorial Square next to the nativity manger. The Journal Times (12-21-07, p. 9A) noted that a member of the Freedom from Religion Foundation "started thinking about how they would respond to the religious symbol [manger scene], which they believe has no right being displayed on public property. 'It infers that this is a Christian nation,' Sorenson said. "The country has no religion. This is our objection.' "
From an Observer's standpoint, what was interesting was the vehemence and emotion that these non-believers felt about the topic of Christmas. Could they not just have as easily ignored the manger and put their energy into something more positive? Or put up the Pyramid of Freedom as a pagan solstice symbol in addition to the manger. Certainly America was founded with religious freedom in mind--not lack of religion--and has room for all beliefs, at least that's the idea. Ironically, the symbol of the pyramid--which also graces our dollar bill--is a central theme of the Masons, several of whom were among the nation's founding fathers. These brave men might find that a pyramid erected next to a nativity scene would be quite apropo.
But, what I really started to think about was what atheist have against God. What I concluded is that we need a god even the atheist could love. Think about it. The god that has been created in humanity's image and likeness is rather wimpy--sits on a throne, is a pacifist no matter what, either pays close attention to every move we make or ignores us completely depending on some inscrutable god-thing that we can never comprehend. He must also be a narcissist because preacher Rick Warren's latest Christmas commercial proclaims "God made man to love him." Whether it's him or Him, we are left with a god who makes something in order to adore or be adored. So, who could like or respect that god?
Religions compound the problem by attributing all kinds of behavior to their brand of god while claiming they have exclusive rights to the franchise. What kind of god would ask his creations to erect separative structures in his name in order to have adoration take place? One begins to wonder if on Sunday this supreme being makes the rounds from church to church in order to get filled up for the week with adoration. Or, if some don't make Him dyspeptic like they do the atheists who have a point if you really think about it.
So, what kind of God could atheists rally round? An Observer might speculate that even atheists might come around to a God that makes more sense and is less wimpy. But, you know, that God probably wouldn't care. He's too busy saving the world and is only interested in those who care to join Him, atheist or not. Adoration is not required, nor for that matter is belief. Now that's my kind of God.
On today's God theme, after all it is Sunday, we have two other items of note: The Journal Times noted above, also highlighted a CBS special called "In God's Name" to be aired tonight. The French Naudet brothers had a near death experience in the twin towers on 9/11 while filming a special on firefighters (yes, they were filming BEFORE the impact) and began asking the questions "Why are we here? What is the meaning of life?" Subsequently, the duo interviewed twelve religious leaders representing over 4 billion followers and created the 2-hour special about the daily lives of these men. One of the brothers concluded, " 'I think what people will probably see is that the one constant link throughout the world is that everyone looks to reunite the human and the divine. A lot of them, if not most of them, spoke quite beautifully of that connection with God on a very poetic level, of that importance the voice of God has in their life and what he brings them." One wonders if the Naudets explored what each of these leaders offered to God, as well. Practically. A rational, thinking person might conclude that if they represented 4 billion people as spokespersons of God, the world should look differently, like more enlightened, a place where right human relations prevails. As religious leaders, what is their responsibility in facilitating loving understanding? It's a question that arguably is far more important than what these leaders had for breakfast or for that matter what they get from God.
And finally, a contributor emailed an editorial from the New York Times entitled "A Pause From Death" (12-20-07) that she said showed enlightened change emanating from the United Nations, a place that was created as a place of light but does not always shine: "The United Nations General Assembly voted on Tuesday for a global moratorium on the death penalty. The resolution was non-binding. . .and failed repeatedly in the 1990s, but this time the vote was 104 to 54, with 29 nations abstaining." The editorialist noted with derision that the United States, Iran, Iraq, China and Sudan were of the latter group. He concluded by saying: "On Monday, New Jersey became the first state in 40 years to abolish the death penalty. That event. . .left much of the country underwhelmed. But overseas, the votes in Trenton and the United Nations were treated as glorious news. Rome continued a tradition to make victories against capital punishment: it bathed the Colosseum, where Christians were fed to lions, in golden light." The question is do we or do we not need the death penalty to sustain law and order? More and more the world is coming around to the view that we do not. Eventually, all nations will come to this conclusion, but in this period of darkness before the dawn, we are not all there yet.
From an Observer's standpoint, what was interesting was the vehemence and emotion that these non-believers felt about the topic of Christmas. Could they not just have as easily ignored the manger and put their energy into something more positive? Or put up the Pyramid of Freedom as a pagan solstice symbol in addition to the manger. Certainly America was founded with religious freedom in mind--not lack of religion--and has room for all beliefs, at least that's the idea. Ironically, the symbol of the pyramid--which also graces our dollar bill--is a central theme of the Masons, several of whom were among the nation's founding fathers. These brave men might find that a pyramid erected next to a nativity scene would be quite apropo.
But, what I really started to think about was what atheist have against God. What I concluded is that we need a god even the atheist could love. Think about it. The god that has been created in humanity's image and likeness is rather wimpy--sits on a throne, is a pacifist no matter what, either pays close attention to every move we make or ignores us completely depending on some inscrutable god-thing that we can never comprehend. He must also be a narcissist because preacher Rick Warren's latest Christmas commercial proclaims "God made man to love him." Whether it's him or Him, we are left with a god who makes something in order to adore or be adored. So, who could like or respect that god?
Religions compound the problem by attributing all kinds of behavior to their brand of god while claiming they have exclusive rights to the franchise. What kind of god would ask his creations to erect separative structures in his name in order to have adoration take place? One begins to wonder if on Sunday this supreme being makes the rounds from church to church in order to get filled up for the week with adoration. Or, if some don't make Him dyspeptic like they do the atheists who have a point if you really think about it.
So, what kind of God could atheists rally round? An Observer might speculate that even atheists might come around to a God that makes more sense and is less wimpy. But, you know, that God probably wouldn't care. He's too busy saving the world and is only interested in those who care to join Him, atheist or not. Adoration is not required, nor for that matter is belief. Now that's my kind of God.
On today's God theme, after all it is Sunday, we have two other items of note: The Journal Times noted above, also highlighted a CBS special called "In God's Name" to be aired tonight. The French Naudet brothers had a near death experience in the twin towers on 9/11 while filming a special on firefighters (yes, they were filming BEFORE the impact) and began asking the questions "Why are we here? What is the meaning of life?" Subsequently, the duo interviewed twelve religious leaders representing over 4 billion followers and created the 2-hour special about the daily lives of these men. One of the brothers concluded, " 'I think what people will probably see is that the one constant link throughout the world is that everyone looks to reunite the human and the divine. A lot of them, if not most of them, spoke quite beautifully of that connection with God on a very poetic level, of that importance the voice of God has in their life and what he brings them." One wonders if the Naudets explored what each of these leaders offered to God, as well. Practically. A rational, thinking person might conclude that if they represented 4 billion people as spokespersons of God, the world should look differently, like more enlightened, a place where right human relations prevails. As religious leaders, what is their responsibility in facilitating loving understanding? It's a question that arguably is far more important than what these leaders had for breakfast or for that matter what they get from God.
And finally, a contributor emailed an editorial from the New York Times entitled "A Pause From Death" (12-20-07) that she said showed enlightened change emanating from the United Nations, a place that was created as a place of light but does not always shine: "The United Nations General Assembly voted on Tuesday for a global moratorium on the death penalty. The resolution was non-binding. . .and failed repeatedly in the 1990s, but this time the vote was 104 to 54, with 29 nations abstaining." The editorialist noted with derision that the United States, Iran, Iraq, China and Sudan were of the latter group. He concluded by saying: "On Monday, New Jersey became the first state in 40 years to abolish the death penalty. That event. . .left much of the country underwhelmed. But overseas, the votes in Trenton and the United Nations were treated as glorious news. Rome continued a tradition to make victories against capital punishment: it bathed the Colosseum, where Christians were fed to lions, in golden light." The question is do we or do we not need the death penalty to sustain law and order? More and more the world is coming around to the view that we do not. Eventually, all nations will come to this conclusion, but in this period of darkness before the dawn, we are not all there yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
