Do we worship the same God?

There is and can only be one God.

I am not going to defend that statement but to take it as read and see where it leads in the context of different religions.  If you don’t want to accept the statement, this post is not for you so please don’t waste your time and energy reading further.

There is and can only be one God.

That one God is love.  Without God there can be no love.  And so each and every act of love is an act of God.  If a Christian loves, that is God within them.  If a Moslem loves then that is God within them.  If an atheist loves that is God within them.

That one God created and sustained the universe. He sends the rain on the good and the bad.  His laws of science knit us together in our mother’s womb, allow us to experience the world, and present us with the alternatives of love or hate, good or evil.

That one God has made each of us as an individual.  Each of us is a ‘me’.  He has given us freedom to choose to love or hate, to be good or evil.  As individuals we choose.  If we choose to love we choose God whether we know it or not, whether we are Christian, Moslem, Hindu, atheist, agnostic or Jedi.

If someone prays to the single God, creator and sustainer of the universe, to the God who is love, the God who is goodness and power, does it matter what religion they are in?

If someone chooses love and goodness, does it matter what religion they are in?

What is religion? According to the Oxford dictionary it is:

“The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods”

and

“A particular system of faith and worship”

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

A follower of one religion can challenge whether the “system of faith and worship” of another religion is accurate.  A Christian can reasonably challenge whether what Islam teaches about what is right and wrong is right – but can a Christian challenge which God a Moslem is praying to? Or vice versa?

Can a Christian say that a Moslem worships a different God?  Or can the Christian only say to the Moslem that “you don’t know God like I do”?

I don’t need to use Christians and Moslems for the example.  I could have used Evangelical and Liberal Christians, Protestants and Catholics.

I believe that the teaching of Christ is the best description of what God intends for each of us, and that Jesus life and death are the greatest demonstration of how God loves each and every one of us.  I can guide others to the same source of love and goodness that I have found, but am I to criticise and judge them if they do not understand the Bible in the same way that I do?  Isn’t my job to love, and aren’t I supposed to leave the judgement up to God?

Isn’t religions job to help me do my job?  Surely religion is not there to put obstacles in the way of me loving others?

What does God think of all the conflict that is caused by religious dogmatism about what he is like?  Does he simply want us to get on with loving Him, and loving our neighbour as ourselves?

Grace and love to you all.

War, religion, God, and why I write

I remember a discussion soon after I became a Christian where I was asked “so what about all the other religions?”  My reply was that they were simply mistaken.  I think the remark was taken to be rather arrogant.

I read the news today. I see the conflict, anger and fear; fighting between Moslems of different sects.  I see forced imposition of religious dogma; conversion to another religion punishable by death.  We all know that this is not as it should be. And I am reminded of my reply.

Reason and evidence tells me there is a God, and my whole being tells me that love is our ultimate purpose.  And when I find that love underpins and is at the heart of Jesus teaching I begin to see how it all fits together; how we are meant to be.

If I were God and someone from another religion was praying to me, I would not ignore them because they think I have a different name, I would not condemn them because they don’t understand my intentions for them.  I would be saddened that they are misled, I would try to teach them, and I would restrain some of their actions, but I would still love them.

As a mere human trying to follow God’s purpose, I don’t hate the Muslims, or even the Westborough Baptists, but I believe they are misled and mistaken.  I hate what they do, and I want them to stop.  I want them to understand the truth, and find their real purpose.  I want that for everyone.

If we all really understood Christ’s teaching, if we really loved God with all our heart, and loved our neighbour as ourselves, if we really were ready to forgive others and restore broken relationships we know that the world would be a better place.

That is why I write.  That is why I follow Christ.  That is my purpose.

What is yours?

Goodness – me!

Do you ever stop to think what you would like on your gravestone when you are dead?  It’s a good way of finding out what we really want to be like.  I don’t think any of us would like to see phrases like:

“Always selfish and greedy”

“Never had time for anyone else”

“Vindictive and hateful”

When we see a new baby, at a christening who would want to think that the baby would grow up to be a thief, or to have a string of husbands who she cheated on and deserted, or to be a child molester.

We know deep down that we want to be good.

In the 11th century, Anselm of Canterbury described how being good is possible through ‘goodness’, and how supreme goodness is God.  So that desire to be good is actually us wanting to be like God (supreme goodness), to act like God, to be in his image.

St John’s describes in his gospel that God is love.  So when we love one another, our love is possible through love, which is through God.  We are choosing to act like God, to be part of God.

Each of us has the essence of goodness in us, and the essence of love in us.  God is goodness and God is love, so we all have God within us.  Sometimes we choose to ignore goodness and love, and instead choose to be selfish, vindictive or hateful.  But that is not what we want to be – as we found at the start of this post.

The true Christian religion is about helping us to be what we want to be – good and loving.  It is about connecting with that goodness and love within us; God within us.  It is about learning from Christ what goodness and love looks like, and trying to imitate him.

And if you want to be good and loving, then that means that you want to be like God.  Jesus said that ‘if you have seen me then you have seen God’; Jesus represented supreme goodness and love in human form.  So if you want to be good and loving, since Jesus was supremely good and loving, then you want to be like Jesus, and if you want to be like Jesus you can call yourself a Christian.

Christians pray to help make that connection with goodness and love.  Here’s an example of a Celtic prayer from Lindisfarne:

Help me dear Lord to care too much

To love too freely

To pray unceasingly

To forgive endlessly

To laugh fearlessly

To question

To live

To be who I am

To be where I am

To be what I am

To hope

To believe

To reach out my hand

That’s a good prayer, isn’t it?  It’s about connecting with God within us.  It’s asking God to help us be who we want to be.

Do you want to be the sort of person that the prayer describes?  You can take a step closer by praying that prayer.

Related posts

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/an-argument-for-and-definition-of-god/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/the-god-of-science/

 

Proof of God?

A friend asked “Let us suppose it was absolutely certain there was no god but many people honestly believed there was – how different would the world look today?”

I could answer that if there was no God there would be no universe and no people to observe it.

Clearly, as we are both intelligent people we must be talking about something different when we say the word ‘god’.

The God that I conclude exists is a creator, and a God who sustains the universe.  Clearly the universe exists and continues to exist.  Ask a physicist why and he will probably say ‘because of the laws of physics’.  A rose is a rose by any other name, so at minimum my God is the laws of physics – we just choose to give it different names.

Perhaps my friend’s question is going beyond that definition of God.  Perhaps he is asking about a God who has ‘character’, a ‘me’-ness that I have.  (I know that I exist, there is an essence that is ‘me’).  What would things be like if there was not a God who had an essence of ‘me’?

It’s actually not easy to define what ‘I’ am.  Science of course shows that my brain has massively complex computational ability, but that doesn’t really help.  Literature and philosophy, and our daily experience tells me that there are things like love, joy, peace, thoughts, free will.  Let’s consider these as parts of ‘me’, and think – what if there were not a god who also had these characteristics.

But once again, the same sort of argument applies.  God is love, joy, peace.  Therefore without God there would be no love, joy or peace.  There would be no literature, there would be no mathematics, no equations, there would be not science.

Free will though is slightly different.  We know we have free will, and yet it is inexplicable by science.  It is inconsistent with the laws of physics.  Free will seems a bit of a paradox.  If God is the laws of physics, and free will is inconsistent with the laws of physics then how can that work?  A rational explanation is that free will is something that is a gift of God, that is not constrained by the laws of physics.  Therefore we begin to see what would be different in my friends question.  Without God we would have no free will, we would not be able to choose right from wrong, we would simply be robots who respond to stimuli.

But to explore the question further.  My last paragraph introduced right and wrong.  We know that there is right and wrong – even if we don’t always know what is right and what is wrong.  Right and wrong are different from free will, so let’s suppose that we were able to have free will but had no knowledge of right and wrong.  Clearly right and wrong exist.  Goodness and evil exist.  And yes, my definition of God includes ultimate goodness.  So without God we would have no constraint on what we do, we would simply live to serve ourselves.  The world would be governed simply by whoever was strongest.  We would be like most of the rest of the animal kingdom.  States like North Korea would be everywhere and left unchecked.  Anarchy would reign.  The world would be a very different place to live.

So have I proved God exists?  I think so (but I would) – simply because my definition of God includes everything that we know exists.  I define that it is not possible for anything to exist without God, and so anything which exists must be God.

My friend asked what if God didn’t exist but people believed that he did.  I hope that I have shown that such a question is not directly answerable, it is like the “can god make a thing so heavy that he cannot lift it” question, or “can God make something that doesn’t exist”.  But perhaps I’ve also been able to answer the questions behind the question.  Will it satisfy my friend?  I doubt it.  If any of us really doesn’t want to change our views then no amount of logical reasoning will make a difference.  But perhaps others will find the discussion interesting….

If you found this post interesting you might also like:

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/goodness-me/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/the-god-of-science/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/can-god-answer-prayer-in-a-universe-that-operates-according-to-the-laws-of-physics/

The God of Science

Neuroscientist Michael Graziano has speculated on the connection between the material and the spirit world.  His book “God Soul Mind Brain” has the stated aim to describe ‘the mechanistic understanding of the spirit world’.  With is background he makes the assumption that ‘mechanism’ is the reality and perception is the illusion.

“we do not perceive the world as it is, the brain constructs a simulated world”

“colour is not actually out there…. The same set of wavelengths may look green to you in a different context or grey or blue”

“We experience the model rather than the reality”

The statements are fascinating reminders of what the brain does: it constructs a simulated world, it provides the stimulus to allow the experience of colours, it somehow appears to create a model in our brains.

However, it is a false assumption that the mechanism is the reality and the perception is the illusion.   Accepting the assumption is like saying that the material pages of a book and the printed ink are the reality, and the story that the book tells or the information that it contains is not the reality.  Whist nobody would disagree that the book is the material and the story is not, which of them is the reality?

In a book, we read the words rather than perceiving the paper and letters and we construct in our imagination a picture and an experience based on the words and story within the book.  In the only scale of importance that matters to a human being, the book is the words, not the paper and ink.  War and Peace is a famous story, the paper that it was written on was just the framework for holding it. The story is eternal although the paper decays. To a human being, the story is the reality.

Consider a work of art; the material is not the masterpiece, it is merely a framework which holds the masterpiece.  The canvas and paint is meaningless, the picture is the meaning.

If we can free ourselves of the dogma of materialism then we can perhaps begin to consider that in the universe created from nothing, where particles are only potentialities until they are observed the reality is the experience, the qualia, the ‘I’, and that the material is just the skeleton for holding the reality.

The material universe is meaningless until it is perceived, the perception of it gives it meaning.

The butterfly nebula is beautiful when it is observed; without observation it is meaningless.

Two bags of chemicals are meaningless, but the intimate relationship between two people who are in love has immense meaning and purpose.

Is this so strange?  When we look at the quantum level of the material, there is no such thing as paper or ink.  There are particles and forces that we cannot understand.  They are outside of our ability to perceive, so we think of them as miniature versions of ping pong balls and sticks.  They are only potentialities until they are observed.  What we consider material reality is not really real, it performs its function only when it is perceived and observed.  So perhaps what we perceive as real day to day, the material world, is similarly non-material. Perhaps the only reality is our perception, our model.

So what of God in this?  Jesus spoke of God living in us and us in him.  Perhaps our material framework that holds us is part of God.  As Anselm wrote, everything is what it is through extreme goodness, through God, so we are what we are through and within God.  We are told that God is love, and that we are made in his image.  Jesus said that ‘if you have seen me, you have seen the father’; I don’t think he was talking about his flesh, but his ‘being’ – his ‘spirit’.  Our framework (our body and brain) is a small part of a material universe that is created and sustained by God.  If that universe is within God, part of God, then we too are ‘in him’, as he is ‘in us’.

And what of laws of physics, of evolution and biology?  We can create mathematical models of inanimate physical objects, and we can observe the behaviour of molecules and cells which seems to be beyond the possibility of simply responding to those physical laws – yet seems to be consistent, predictable, and purposeful. Within the framework where the universe is within and part of God there may be causes other than the laws of physics for the astonishing growth and development of the human being from the single cell; a God whose will ‘knits us together in our mother’s womb’. In the same way that our ‘will’ causes our hands to move, makes our choices, interacts with others, so God’s will can cause our bodies to grow and develop, to form our brain, to manufacture us as the masterpiece we are, our body being the receptacle for our spirit.

It is the non-material that motivates us, the non-material that leads to change, the non-material that makes our world like it is rather than a desolate moonscape.  The non-material is master over matter.  The non-material is the meaning, the meaning is the reality.

Who would disagree that there is a ‘spirit of Christmas’, all of society embracing a season of joy and giving.  People speak of the true spirit of Christmas; we know that there is something that transcends each of us as individuals.  It is part of the sprit that is God.

When we observe a beautiful woodland track, sunlight shining through the leaves to create a dappled light settling on a trickling stream, that beauty is part of the essence that is God.

When we listen to a sublime piece of music that moves us to tears, or an energising rock ballad that lifts our hearts with passion, that is part of God.

When we love someone, our love is part of the supreme love that is God.

When we meet friends in a party, in a community, that spirit of community is part of God’s spirit of community.

If we can appreciate that the greater reality is the spirit, and the material is just the framework then we can see God and the universe in a whole new light.  The universe can be considered the canvas for a cosmic work of art, a magnificent symphony of action and awe.  Life is a molecular dance of astonishing intricacy and beauty.  We are permitted to explore and understand through science.  We are permitted to glimpse the canvas and participate in the dance; characters created by the dance emerging as individual caring, loving, interacting beings partaking of some of the glory that is the story; individual masterpieces beyond the beautiful, whose reality is our character, our choices, our nature, our soul.  Creatures of purpose and with purpose.  Creatures honoured with the possibility of relating to our creator, the master artist, engineer, scientist, musician, teacher, parent, friend, but never are we his equal.

So this is the God of Science:  A God who was there before the universe began.  An un-created, creator God who gave ‘nothing’ the ability to become ‘something’.  A God who sustains, and maybe actually is, the very fabric of the universe. A God who actually is the laws of physics, who benevolently guides providence to bring life out of a set of chemicals.   A God who imbues the chemical dance that is us with the ability to feel, to taste, to see, to experience: love, joy, peace, fulfilment, intellectual challenge, selflessness, forgiveness, anger, hate, disgust, bitterness.  Perhaps even a God who is love, joy, peace, fulfilment…. But a God who allows us to experience both the good and the bad, and who allows us to choose to pursue that which is good, or that which is not.

Add to this the God revealed to us by Jesus Christ and we begin to understand the complete context.

butterfly nebula

An argument for, and definition of God.

I have started reading Anselm; interesting stuff. Not sure I’ve really got my head round it yet, but nevertheless let me try to paraphrase my understanding of his argument so far in a modern context:

We are all aware that there are ‘non-material’ things: love, justice, purpose, hope, belief, to name a few.  An act of love is carried-out through ‘love’, and an act of justice is carried-out through ‘justice’.  If love did not exist then one could not carry-out an act of love. And it is through ‘goodness’ that we are able to carry-out an act of love; without goodness we could not carry-out an act of love, or of justice, or…  Apart from goodness, all other non-material things are carried-out through goodness, and therefore goodness is the ultimate non-material thing, or ‘essence’ and it exists through itself.

We can also perceive that some acts are express more love than others; there can be great love, or great justice, or great goodness.  And we can imagine that for any great goodness there could be a goodness that is just a little greater … until we reach infinite goodness.  And so everything that is good in any way is within that infinite, or supreme goodness.

Everything exists through something, and we have seen that of things immaterial everything exists through supreme goodness.  But everything must exist through one thing.  If we imagine that there were more than one thing, then either there would be one thing through which the more than one thing were able to exist – which would then be the one thing, or they might exist through a ‘power to exist through oneself’ – which would then be the one thing, or they would exist mutually through each other – which defies reason.

The universe exists, and so it exists through something. Non-material things exist, and they exist through supreme goodness.  Therefore either the universe exists through supreme goodness, or supreme goodness exists through the universe.  But can supreme goodness exist through the universe?  We can conceive that there are other universes, but it is inconceivable that those other universes exist without supreme goodness; being non-material supreme goodness cannot be constrained within a material context.  Therefore it is impossible that supreme goodness exists through the universe, but the universe must exist through supreme goodness, and there can only be one supreme goodness –  which we define as God.

Related posts

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/proof-of-god/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/the-god-of-science/