I really don’t know how to respond to this last comment because I have no idea what you’re talking about.

You wrote:

“In other words God isn’t radiating love, joy, and peace. God is radiating metaphysical love, metaphysical joy, and metaphysical peace which are truly only one. The differance is essence and interpretation. Put in another way, the differance between love and hate is perspective. God is both and neither we determine how the experiences is interpreted.”

So, metaphysical love is essence and (simple) love is interpretation. And the difference between (simple) love and (simple) hate is perspective. Which means, I suppose, that when God radiates metaphysical love, we might interpret it as (simple) hate? And what, at any rate is the essential difference between metaphysical love and (simple) love? Shouldn’t I interpret a thing according to its reality? And if it’s absolute metaphysical reality is love, how can I interpret it as anything other than love? Interpretation certain involves perspective, but can that perspective contradict the absolute metaphysical reality it’s interpreting?

Like I said, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ll concede that I’m misunderstanding you. The problem is, I’m not sure how else to begin to understand you.

The reason for my ground objection is simple:

If we experience God as radiating love, joy, and peace, it should be in part because he is radiating love, joy, and peace. There should be a grounding relationship between what God is doing and how we experience what he is doing.

Furthermore, given that character precedes action, we should presuppose that God radiates love, joy, and peace because he is loving, joyful, and peaceful. But you continue to speak of God’s essential neutrality, which we can experience as either positive or negative.

But, from my point of view, if God is neutral, to say that he is loving, joyful, or peaceful is wrong. Which also means that he does not radiate love, joy, or peace. Which also means that we cannot experience his radiations of love, joy, and peace.

This line of reasoning also explains why I continue to object to your apple analogy. People eat apples because they’re tasty and nutritious. By analogy, God should also be tasty and delicious. But you continue to insist in God’s neutrality. To me, that seems to indicate that he is neither tasty nor delicious. He’s more like a mannequin, which is just there, than an apple, which we can savor and enjoy.

Your position seems gnostic to me because it is gnostic. By the way, I picked up that Schuon book you recommended. The exoteric/esoteric distinction is fundamentally gnostic. So is the drive to see orthodox doctrine as literally false but symbolically true (in some way). Since you align yourself with Christianity (in some fashion), I thought it would be correct to call you a Gnostic than a Buddhist.

I can’t speak for how Western or Easter culture has cultivated religious perspectives as such. I can speak for myself: I want my emotional response to God to be grounded in the reality of who God is.

George

You asked “how is the reality of God the ground of your experience of him?”. The answer, IMO, is that my experiences are physical psuedo-realities grounded in metaphysical ultimate reality. In other words God isn’t radiating love, joy, and peace. God is radiating metaphysical love, metaphysical joy, and metaphysical peace which are truly only one. The differance is essence and interpretation. Put in another way, the differance between love and hate is perspective. God is both and neither we determine how the experiences is interpreted. This leads me to your second and third points.

I believe you are focusing too much on love, joy, and peace as the reasons for experience. God’s neutrality must include what from human perspective would be deemed both negative and positive. The reason for experience, however, is none of these. Going back to my overused apple, which you still wont acknowledge, two people eating the same apple can receive very differant experiences. One might like the tase while the other hates it. One might be allergic to the apple while the other feels refreshed. One might feel uncomfortable with breaking skin while the other enjoys the crunch. However, none of these are the reason why they SHOULD eat the apple. The reason is because it does a body good, to borrow from our friends over at milk. The reason we experience God is not for the interpretation of the experience. The reason we experience God is because it is our purpose. Perspective both negative and positive exists because of the seperation between the self and God. Losing ones perspective in God is the point. It is like watching a beautiful ocean until eventually the line where the ocean ends and you begin ceases to exist.

I am amused that you consider my position gnostic. I have always been fascinated by the gnostic movements. I am interested in what makes my position seem gnostic to you.

Regarding pregnant mothers and their babies, I must first say welcome back pugnacious George. Secondly, I think I may have been less than clear in the way I worded my statement. What I meant to say is that one would be hard pressed to argue that eating is altruistic. Even if a mother eats for her baby she also eats for herself. Eating is never completely altruistic.

On cultural influence, I agree with your points. What I am really trying to get at, however, is the connection of culture to how one sees or experiences transcendance. For instance some people are comforted by knowing a personal God. Others find a personal God distracting and prefer to meditate abstractly. What I am interested in is how Western or Eastern culture has cultivated religious perspectives as such.

Jeremy

Regarding (1): If God isn’t radiating “love, joy, and peace,” why do you experience God as “love, joy, and peace”? Or, somewhat more abstractly, how is the reality of God the ground of your experience of him? And if he’s not the ground of your experience, then why do you keep talking about your experience of him? I ask these questions because I don’t yet see any connection between the reality of God as you’re describing him and the subjective quality of your experience of him. What is the connection between God’s neutrality and your experiences of divine love, joy, and peace?

You wrote, “Going back to my analogy of food, one would be hard pressed to find an altruistic motive for eating.” Uh, not really. A pregnant mother eats for the health of her baby.

Regarding (2): “I am leaning toward the position that God is neutral.” Right, like a mannequin. Is God neutral between love and hatred? Between justice and injustice? Between kindness and cruelty? Between life and genocide? If he is, why bother with him? Why care about a God who is indifferent to us?

Regarding (3): We agree that the subjective experience of God is not identical to the objective reality of God. God is always bigger than human perception of him or conceptualization about him. That’s more or less a given in Christian theology. That’s why Eastern theologians emphasize apophasis, or the ways in which God is unlike human beings. It’s also why Western theologians talk about the analogy of beings. As unlike us as God is, we are made in his image and therefore can speak truthfully–even if inadequately–about him. The problem I have with your position is with the grounds by means of which you connection your subjective experiences of God to his objective reality. If God is neutral, why should we feel love, joy, and peace in his presence?

The more I ponder your position, the more I wonder if Gnostic might be a better description of your position than Buddhist.

Of course there are cultural influences on spiritual inclinations. In Christian theology, it is impossible for it to be otherwise, since we are creatures limited by the horizons of time and space. But since we are creatures created in the divine image, we can nonetheless speak truthfully and attain knowledge of reality. But still, I expect my practice of Christianity to look more North American than, say, South African, because I’m here not there. Again, this doesn’t necessarily invalidate a North American practice of Christianity. Although it does mean I will be tempted in ways that a South African might not be.

George

Now that I have regained some stamina after typing and retyping my post yesterday, I would like to continue my response to your previous remarks before engaging your latest observations.

I would like to start with the new set of dialogue questions that you posed as I feel they are very good questions.

1. To your first point on the personal nature of peace, love, and joy I think you have correctly pinpointed the nuance of my position. It should be clear that when I refer to receiving these things from experiencing God I do not mean that in a literal way. I am not advocating that what one receives from God is love, joy, or peace. Rather, I am positing that what we experience from God is interpreted in personal terms as love, joy, peace etc. This leads to your second point.

2. I don’t believe we should acknowledge only the positive over the negative. In fact I am of the persausion, though this is far from assurity, that positive and negative are only prevalent from the human perspective. In other words, I am leaning toward the position that God is neutral. Don’t hold me to this as I am still working through the implications of this position.

3. To your final point, I do recognize the self-centered nature of my position. However, I am not convinced that this is a weakness. Going back to my analogy of food, one would be hard pressed to find an altruistic motive for eating. Yet, no one judges this act as selfish in the negative sense. You said, “If you could get the same experiences out of something that’s not God, what would be the reason for seeking these same experiences from God” I have never argued that one can obtain divine reality outside of divine interaction. Going back to my previous point, it is important to understand that human perception of transcendant metaphysical reality is not the same as the objective reality of the essence of said metaphysical object. Which leads me to your latest remarks.

I am going to skip over your comments on authorial intent for the moment. I want to address this statement:
“On what grounds do you believe that God is good or valuable”
This to me seems to be the most pertanent of the questions you have posed. This is also the most difficult question for me to answer. So before I start let me say that I am only beginning to uncover the depth of why one should pursue divine experiences. I should also point out that my answer will be philosophical as opposed to emperical.
I believe that God is the metaphysical core of all existence, the light of which causes the physical to be but mere pseudo-reality. I believe the physical world in all its splendor and its decadence is only partially alive. I also believe that purpose, of an ultimate nature, cannot be attained via physical ambitions. Thus, purpose, which I intend to include both that which is deemed positive and that which is negative, is only attained through interaction with God. Through these interactions we as humans are able to experience the totallity of life. The ultimate form of living is thus to recognize our metaphysical nature and its transcendant unity with the God nature which enlivens the entirety of our physical world. Thus we commune with God in such a way that is beyond individualization, and the line which seperates our physical self from our metaphysical self as well as my metaphysical self from God’s metaphysical self dissipates. This is why I believe that pursuit of God is valuable.

Now I understand that alot of this is influenced by Buddhism as well as other forms of Eastern mysticism. You are right in pointing out that I “don’t believe in Christianity in any way, shape, or form as it has been believed for two thousand years”. I consider myself a Christian because God has been revealed to me primarily through the teachings of Jesus. I know this doesnt count for you, or most Christians for that matter. However, I find value in holding to Christianity in this way so I see no need in removing the title from myself.

Finally, I do not mean to nag, but you never gave your thoughts on my question of cultural influence on spiritual inclination. I am truly interested in your perspective on this.

ps: on authorial intent I still agree with most of what you are saying. However, even your criteria of context and historicity are subjective which taints their ability to speak authoratatively on intent.

1. I stand by my comments on authorial intent. When you are trying to determine what an author meant, you don’t ask readers what they mean. You ask the author. If the author isn’t present, you interpret his words within several contexts: (1) The literary context of his work. How does this author use words and phrases? (2) The historical and grammatical meaning of his words. What did words and phrases mean in a given period when the author wrote?

This doesn’t mean there isn’t room for reader perception. For example, I recently sat on a committee trying to formulate a statement on immigration. The question was asked how we should refer to immigrants who have entered and live in the country illegally. To me, “illegal aliens” or “illegal immigrants” is the most neutral and legally descriptive phrase. To others, however, the terms were inflammatory, and the preferred term was “undocumented worker.” A person writing might take into account reader perception when choosing which terms to use, but at the end of the day, he has too choose, and we should understand his reasons for making the choice.

2. I understand why you like the apple analogy better than the mannequin analogy. But I’m not sure you’re understanding my point. I’m asking on what grounds you believe that God is worth studying, believing in, worshiping, ordering one’s life around, etc. The reason I’m asking you for the grounds of your belief is because you believe–if I’m understanding you correctly–that God does not act, speak, judge, will, intend, etc. But if that’s the case, on what grounds can you say that experience of him is as tasty as an apple when other people have experienced God as fearful or totally absent. He may be “tasty,” so to speak, in your experience, but that only tells me about your taste buds, not about God. In other words, if I understand your religious concepts correctly, the experience of God is completely subjective and has not objective component because God does not act, speak, judge, will, intend, etc.

3. Then again, reading your response on this point, maybe I haven’t understood your religious concepts. You speak of God as “an absolute metaphysical object.” And you go on to say that God “reveals” himself “the same way that your island or my apple” does. But apples and islands doen’t reveal themselves. This would require intention and action. Apples and islands are found or are revealed. As passive objects, they have to be discovered by active subjects.

God doesn’t command things. I understand why you say this, since your God is not personal. He does not–to repeat yet again–act, speak, judge, will, intend, etc. But I’m still uncomprehending of why we should bother with that kind of God at all. On what grounds do you believe that God is good or valuable?

4. I hate to tell you this, my friend, but if you don’t believe in a personal God, you don’t believe in Christianity in any way, shape, or form as it has been believed for two thousand years. An impersonal God is not the God of the Bible or Christian tradition. Rather, God is love, which is a personal and relational term, especially as revealed in the inner life of the Trinity. Your God–or rather, your god-concept–is more properly Buddhist than Christian.

And yes, I acknowledge that all language about God–even orthodox language is anthropomorphic. I’m not sure why this is problematic, however, since anthropos is also imago dei. Made in God’s image, our language is capable of talking about who God is and what he requires of us.

George

I want to thank you for your candor in your last response to my question. I feel like I am beginning to understand your motivation better. I had one question as to how you much of an influence you feel your cultural upbringing had on your inclinations toward a personal representation of God. The reason I ask is because I am intrigued by the Hindu concept that people have differant spirituality types, and I am curious as to how much of an influence culture has in this. Your insights would be greatly appreciated.

Now onto your questions:
1. Good point on authorial intent. However, I feel as though you are not giving enough room for reader perception. It would be great if we could always have authors arbitrate their work. Unfortunately, many times as with the Bible this is not an option. If we had to rely on authorial intent most pastors would stop using the Bible.

2. Again I like apple far better than mannequin as an analogy. The reason is because it is easier to understand what one gets from an apple than from a doll. For the sake of clarity broaden the analogy to include all food. The reason you pursue food is because of all the things you get from it. Choosing not to pursue God is like choosing not to eat.

3. I agree although misperception is really unaccountable for. I am also not advocating that God is a figment of ones phsyche. God is an absolute metaphysical object, as much as that can true. And God reveals “himself” the same way that your island or my apple do.

On the Caananites I am not arguing that the Israelite perception of God’s command was wrong. I am arguing that God doesnt command things. I see this as an example of people experiencing a given aspect of God and then trying to apply that aspect to their current situation, which often plays out as mere justification for predetermined actions.

4. I agree on what divides our perspectives. However, I would argue one can see the pictures of God in Christian tradition as mere anthropomorphizations without needing to abandon Christianity in order to hold my views. As far as knowing God I think a distinction or clarification of what intent we are using the term “knowing”. Your right I don’t believe we can dissect God for emperical proofs of existence. However, I do think we can know God in the sense that I know an apple when I taste it. Of course this form of knowing is completely subjective but it is not ignorance. I had a few more points but writing everything a second time is becoming tedious. I will get to the rest of your responses later….

I keep forgetting to answer your questions:

Why am I drawn to the Christian view of God, what might be called–following John Paul II–Christian personalism? Precisely because I am drawn to the notion that at the bottom of this often chaotic and incomprehensible universe, there is a God who is love, who loves me, and invites me into loving relationship.

I am also drawn to that vision of God because I’m strong on oughtness. Not only are we given the opportunity to enter fellowship with the God who is love, but we ought to do so. He deserves our praise. His will pervades the universe and explains its order, both natural and moral.

Finally, I am drawn to this picture of God because a personal God who loves me and commands me is also a God who is just. At the end of the day, I want to be on the right side of justice among the sheep rather than among the goats on the wrong side.

George