The Nature of God

I started to think about my own concept of God when I read the following comment by Nate on timesandseasons.org:

I think we have a too anthropomorphic view of God, “a God who weeps.  We see Him in our own image, we image Him with the same outrage, the same dogmatism, the same ethics, the same rationality and common sense as humans have.

But I think God is more than this.  He is playful, unexpected God, one who deliberately misleads.  He likes to manifest himself in the form of “stumbling blocks” “rocks of offence,” he likes to call “the weak things, the unlearned and despised.”  He is not an efficient God, but a 40 years in the wilderness God.

I see God as a great, celestial fiddle player, who is constantly sight-reading the music of eternity as it comes before His eyes and making beautiful music out of it, no matter how dark, or how difficult.  I see him as a healer, not as a preventer.  He lets s**t happen, and then makes it marvelous.  He wants us to develop divine Stockholm Syndrome, to say as Job, “though he slay me, yet will I trust him.”

There are so many things to comment on in this version of God, I don’t know where to start.  I think it is interesting that a Mormon would make a comment like “I think we have a too anthropomorphic view of God.”  Isn’t an “anthropomorphic view” what Mormonism is all about, a God of “flesh and bones”?

But when it comes down to it, I somewhat agree with Nate.  Obviously, the eternal nature of a “anthropomorphic” God means that he is substantially different from humankind as we know it.  For example, it is unlikely that God’s bodily functions are anywhere close to anything resembling ours.  But from what I understand, sex is still in play.

But Nate’s description of a Nero-esque God (“celestial fiddle player”) seems truly bizarre.  It reads like a bad sci-fi plot.  In point of fact, his God seems closer to the gnostic creator of the universe than it does a traditional Mormon version of God.

While Nate says that his version of God “likes to manifest himself in the form of stumbling blocks,” my version is nothing like Nate’s or a more typical Mormon version of God that listens and reacts to every prayer.

I’m not sure I believe in God, but if I did here are three things that I would definitely believe:

  1. God is a progressing entity.  For me, this life doesn’t make sense unless there is eternal progression.  And God is very much at the center of this physical, spiritual, and intellectual evolution.
  2. God is standoffish.  For me, He is not up in heaven or Kolob stirring our earthly pot.  Prayer is meditation and little else.  I agree with Nate that God is not a preventer.  But unlike Nate I don’t see him as a literal healer.  Physician heal thyself.  Or in Nate’s case, lawyer heal thyself.
  3. We are co-creators with God.  We are responsible for the impacts we have on the Earth and its inhabitants.  Love thy neighbor, and I would add love the Earth.

Beyond these three points, God is a mystery to me.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Creation, Environment, mormonism, Religion, Social Justice, transhumanism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The Nature of God

  1. Parker says:

    You probably have the makings of a pretty good game–the god I believe in [name the characteristics]. The challenge would be, I think, to help people remember that it is just a game, and not a revelation.

  2. rogerdhansen says:

    Christian religions, including Mormonism, provide comparatively little information about the nature of God. So each of us is forced to come up with our own version, or maybe no version at all (atheists and agnostics). It’s not really a game, it is our personal belief structure. Where revelation is lacking, imagination much prevail.

  3. Parker says:

    Exactly my point. We first have to assume there is a god, and then we have to construct the nature of that god. That in my mind is*inventing.* And then I’m told I must *believe* one of those inventions.

    • rogerdhansen says:

      My issue: is that it is not a game. Whatever construct we make for deity, in all probably, affects the way we live our life. You don’t have to believe any invention but your own. No two Christians or Mormons believe the same thing. My invention guides no life but my own.

      • Parker says:

        I wasn’t clear in my original comment. I was saying one could come up with a table game about creating a god. I didn’t mean to imply that one’s belief that one works so hard to protect is simply a game–it is far more complex than that. However, I don’t think I agree with you that one’s belief guide only one’s life, otherwise there wouldn’t be religions, to name one thing.

        Actually, I agree with your earlier point that so little is known about God (if anything, actually) that you have to create a belief that is largely a construct. As you say, those constructs vary widely. If I am reading you correctly, you seem to think those varying constructs are each sacred.in some way.

        I apologize if I ruffled your feathers with my *game* comment.

  4. rogerdhansen says:

    No, you didn’t ruffle my feathers. I just wanted to understand your comment. It sounds like we are pretty much in agreement.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s