Sarx

From over on my LJ Friends list, my buddy Zac (whom I’ve know for like, ever) asks questions of everyone on his friends list. It’s a fun meme idea, but I don’t use my LJ save to keep track of people. So don’t expect me to pass the meme along.

Here’s my question:

Huw Richardson: Why god?

The question can be asked in one of two ways: “Why God” meaning – Why do I claim to follow the same deity as the Jews, Christians and Muslims? Or it could be asked, taking the lower-case g-god as to mean any deity at all.

To answer the second version first, it needs to be broken down into two parts, itself. And, beyond that, we need to even break it down further.

Why god?

I Why deity?
     A Why spirit?
     B Why anthropomorphic?
     C Why acknowledge?
          1 Does deity want acknowledgement?
          2 Does deity demand acknowledgement?

II Why the middle-eastern tribal deity?
     A Exclusivist claims?
          1 Hell?
     B Inclusivist?
          1 Salvation?
     C Revelatioon?
     D Politics?
          1 Tainted?
          2 Personalised?
     E Personal deity?
          1 Needed at all?

So… here’s a draught based on the outline. One might say it is an essay at an essay answering the question, “Why god?”.

I Why deity?
     A Why spirit?
My own interpretation of Personal experience makes the most sense if I allow for something invisible, something present but (generally) not “normal”. I’m clear on the subjective point of this, but the completely Random Universe offered by “atheistic evolution” makes no moral sense to me. But a divine process of guided evolution does. This is a far cry from “intelligent design” or some sort of creation. At this level, I’m comfortable with the idea of “Spirit” being part of the evolutionary process itself.

     B Why anthropomorphic? If horses made deities they would look like horses.

     C Why acknowledge?
It’s what I do most naturally: I’ve written about apotropaic aspects of religion. But I also have a desire within me to continue communicating with this other, unseen, aspect of nature. I seem to have been gifted with a (shamanic) sense of the presence of this unseen aspect and a desire to use that sense.

          1 Does deity want acknowledgement?
I hate to go to a party where no one talks to me. Wouldn’t it be rude to act that way in someone’s house – even if they, like you, are just components in the process? I talk to birds, insects, plants: why not talk to the other life forms that are also present?

          2 Does deity demand acknowledgement?
Probably not and I tend to imagine there are times when “I want to be left alone.”
But also Probably – but not in the way you might imagine when we say “demand”: imagien being alone with your lover on a Sunday morning, reading the New York Times, sipping coffee, and hearing the birds outside. You may not even be touching, but you are intimately aware of each other, of the birds, of the paper, of the bed, the sheets, the smell of coffee. God is like your lover there. You don’t kneed to say “I know you are there” because he knows you know. And you know he knows you know.

Summary response to question I – why spirit?

I tend to think all deities are this, from the tribal deity of the Jews to the polymorphic “others” of shamanism. Notice I said “are this”, singular. This is based on my own personal experience, my subjective experience of reality. I find this subjective experience to be universally present and identical. I find it in High Mass, Kaballat Shabbat, Divine Liturgy, some college dances at NYU come to mind, pagan circles, deep in New Grange, standing in front of Mythraic carvings, looking at the cave paintings.

It seems to be what the majority of humans feel, as well (no matter how they define it).

I define it as “deity” because no matter what it might be – co-evolutionary partner, group mind, otherworld” etc, it seems to me to be on another level – a collective level. Humans experience things on an individual basis. Deity seems to imply “the next level”. It takes at least two to experience deity: me and deity. It is, in whatever respects, higher than the individual human level.

II Why the middle-eastern tribal deity?
     A Exclusivist claims?
Yes. The Bible is filled with such. I have to acknowledge that. But many religions have some sort of exclusivist claims. They have evolved beyond them. I think Christianity and Judaism have, also, evolved.

The ideas of the modern Christians are not the same as the ancient ones – conservative or liberal. The idea of the modern Jews are not the same as the ancient ones, conservative or liberal.

From the outside, it’s possible to pick up the Bible and say, “Eewwww! why believe this?” But no one does. Modern – even ultra conservative – Judaism and Christianity are both only modern living traditions that grow out of the Bible. They are not the Bible. It is an act of faith (that I do no share) to claim that ancient followers would recognise modern manifestations.

Even Fred Phelps – God Hates Fags’ Funerals Fred – is not following the Bible, no matter what he says. He’s following an oral tradition based on the Bible.

To hold every Christian responsible for all Christians, or every theist responsible for all theists is silly and shallow at best, prejudiced on the average, and wilfully bigoted at the worst.

          1 Hell?
Hell.

     B Inclusivist?
If we imagine hell as simply an aspect of deity, of communion, then we can begin to imagine all religion as an attempt to return most of humanity (or as much as humanly possible) to that communion on Sunday Morning with your lover in bed, reading the NY Times.

          1 Salvation?

The Greek and Hebrew words for “save” imply not “get out of hell free” cards but rather restored wholeness. Salvation means, exactly, that Sunday-with-your-lover image made universal. I want that experience of wholeness for everyone. Some may experience it on their own, with no help from anyone… but I can’t imagine that idea of “individual communion” to be possible. I just want to allow some may get there.

     C Revelatioon?
Beyond personal, I’m not sure. I can talk to you: but do you hear what I say? If I report what I heard you say – my version of your words – to someone else, do they hear what I say? Etc. If I talk to a room full of people, who hears what I say?

     D Politics?
Some Muslims, Christians and Jews spend a lot of time saying that the Middle Eastern Tribal Deity supports their politics.

          1 Tainted?
Yes. Most all of them are.

          2 Personalised?
Too personalised. THe idea is that, clearly, “God is On My Side” so My Politics are God’s Politics. I don’t buy that at all. When God starts to hate the same people you hate we’re not dealing with religion at all.

But I think it’s possible for one’s conversation with deity to lead one to make political choices.

     E Personal deity?
All deity is only personal. On the level of communion, it is an intimate matter of faith to assume the person on the pew next to you shares with you the same voice/words/understanding/feelings about “the Other”. The Other is, in a real sense, closer than your lover. If you have trouble hearing or understanding “The Other”, how can you hope to understand “The Other” that your lover experiences? How can you expect to understand “The Other” that some stranger from across the room or around the globe ever senses?

Religion is, by default, a least-common denominator of this personal experience. It’s a bit of a foolish leap to take the Least-Common-Denominator idea and turn it into the the Highest Good.

This doesn’t deny that deity might be way more than personal – even the Omnipresent, self-limiting Omnipotent deity proffered by traditional Christianity. But at the point where we need to communicate what we have, it’s going to be just as hard as explaining why I fell in love with Brodie.

          1 Needed at all?
I’d say yes, but that’s because everyone I’ve ever read – even admitted atheists – seems to use words that indicate something in their life fills this aspect of “spirit”. When I listen to scientists get rapturous about star nurseries or engineers get orgasmic about geometric constructs, I sense their religion.

Summary response to question II – Why the middle-eastern tribal deity?
If all revelation is personal, one seeks out a community and shared experience that makes sense out of his or her own relationship with spirit. For me, the modern streams of Jewish and Christian theology have the most resonance for me. I’ve tried conservative streams and while, yes, it’s possible to sense the same resonance, there’s too much other baggage there for me to “click”. And they seem to be, in many ways, in denial about what religion is, and what spirit is (other’s milage will vary there).

The Liberal (Christian) and Reconstructionist-conservative (Jewish) streams seem to, at this point in my life, resonate the most for me with what I’ve heard, learned, lived and experienced. I don’t see this as a denial of – for example – what I learned as a Pagan. Rather I see this as a continuation, a logical evolution based on my own path.