One of my favourite topics of contemplation is God. My musings are somewhat theological, or rather philosophical with theological implications.
Recently I’ve been pondering God’s perfection. God is perfect (this idea includes God’s self-sufficiency; i.e. God has no external needs but is completely fulfilled within God-self). Assuming this is so, then God does not require anything from us. We often hear people say that God requires us to love Him, or God requires us to be good. Although these things might be true, in the sense that God prefers love (a perfect ideal) over hate (imperfect), or goodness (perfect ideal) over evil (imperfect), whatever we do will never affect God’s self-sufficiency. Unlike the gods in fantasy books and computer games that wither away when they are not worshipped, God does not need our worship. (God may appreciate it, but definitely do not need it in any intrinsic sense.)
Such thoughts must sound strange coming from a Christian, but then again, I consider my Christianity founded on philosophical understandings, more than religious traditions.
I think it is because Christians sometimes forget these basic truths about God’s essence (such as God’s self-sufficiency) that they come up with all kinds of strange dogmas. Some people think that if they do certain things, or if they don’t do other things, God will love them more (or conversely like them less). Can you see the problem with this type of thinking? God doesn’t need anything and therefore your doing or not doing will not influence how God feels about you. As a Christian I believe that God is Love, and as such God loves all people unconditionally, regardless of their doings and non-doings.
A possible problem with this focus on God’s self-sufficiency is that one can easily find oneself on a logical slippery-slope resulting in an aloof deistic god. Because all of its needs are met within itself, it is completely inward focussed (self-centred) and as some philosophers of old thought, such a god, dazed in its self-generated ecstasy, would be completely oblivious to anything outside of itself; completely inward-focussed.
This is not at all what I think of God. I think that God’s self-sufficiency is creating exactly the opposite effect; God is completely outward-focussed. It is precisely because all God’s needs are met within God-self, that God can act perfectly unselfishly. God’s actions towards us are without any hidden agendas or selfish pursuits. God’s actions towards us are an immanent outflow of God’s unselfish character.
It is because of God’s self-sufficiency that God can truly love us unconditionally. Humans almost (or probably) never love unconditionally. We usually love other people because of what they do for us, or how they make us feel, or because of their love towards us, or how the act of loving makes us feel, or other such variables. God, on the other hand, does not love us because what we do for God or how we make God feel, and so on; rather, God loves us purely because that is who God is. God is love. God has no need that we can fulfil in God; therefore God’s love towards us is perfect. No strings attached. Unlike us, God does not need to love something, or be loved in return. God is self-fulfilled. But still God loves us because that is God’s character. Just as the sun do not need to shine, it merely shine because that is it’s nature, so God loves, because that is who God is.
Many Christians believe that God loves humanity because of the price paid by Jesus Christ on the cross. This notion implies that God had a (vengeful / retributive) need to be fulfilled and so Jesus supplied that need by being tortured and killed. But this is a completely wrong concept of what happened at the Cross. As one writer puts it: “The Father loves us, not because of the great propitiation, but He provided the propitiation because He loves us. Christ was the medium through which He could pour out His infinite love upon a fallen world. ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself’, 2 Corinthians 5:19.” [“Propitiation” means something that appeases a Deity.]
Jesus Christ did many things at the Cross, one of them we can understand to be a type of payment [“propitiation”] for the sins of humanity, but whatever happened at the Cross it was not intended to change God’s attitude towards us. God is a constant. God is perfect. And God loves us perfectly.
The idea of God’s perfection and self-sufficiency should also rid us of all our attempts at saving ourselves; rid us of all our self-righteousness. If God is perfect, then what on earth can we give as sacrifice that could satisfy a self-sufficient, perfect God? Not even our love can add to God’s self-sufficiency. There is nothing that God needs from us. That is why Christianity believes, that if propitiation is needed, only God can supply such a sacrifice. And only something innately perfect can be such an offer. Only God-self could be such an offer (as only God is innately perfect) – and that is, what we understand Christ, as God-Incarnate, to be.
The text quoted above, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself”, says that it is not God that is in enmity towards us, but we are enemies with God and through the ministry of Christ, God could reconcile us to “Himself”. In other words, through Christ, God could help us change, from being enemies with God, to being friends with God.
Whatever God requests from us, is not for God’s good, but for our good. If God requires us to love God, it is not because God needs to be loved, but it is because we need to love God. If God requires us not to steel or kill or any such moral principle, it is not because our wrong doing is going to deduct from God in some mystical way. Rather, wrong doing will negatively affect our lives, or the lives of other people. God’s commandments are not arbitrary rules by a spoilsport grandfather in the sky that wants to ruin our fun; instead, God’s commandments are for our good, and for the good of our fellow men and women. They are precepts for a life of unselfishness.
Understanding this, a theologian might ask: “If God doesn’t need anything from us, how then can anybody be lost? Aren’t you advocating some kind of universalism where everyone is saved?”
This too, would be a misunderstanding of God’s essence. If God is love, then God will never force Himself onto us. Forced loved is not real love – it is a selfish act, which we call “rape”. No, in God’s love, God will always allow us freedom of choice. Therefore we are always free not to choose God. Unfortunately this choice also means damnation. Not because God arbitrarily damns us, but because God is the Source of Life, love and all creative and regenerative power. Only when we choose God do we have access to these sustaining and restorative forces. So only in a relationship with God can we have salvation. Apart from God there is no salvation.
Showing posts with label theism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theism. Show all posts
Monday, November 3, 2008
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Types of --theisms
Fundamental worldviews are the first building blocks of any religion or ideology. A single fundamental worldview can be subdivided into different further types. For instance there are many types of theism. One can be a monotheist (the belief in a single Godhead) or polytheist (the belief in multiple gods).
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are monotheistic religions. Many of the ancient religions were polytheistic. A modern day polytheistic religion is Shinto (the traditional Japanese religion).
Distinction is sometimes made between hard polytheism and soft polytheism. In hard polytheism the gods are quite distinct entities and can (and often do) engage in confrontation with each other. In soft polytheism the deities are rather different aspects of a single god/goddess that manifests in different entities.
Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish polytheism from pantheism. Depending on the tradition, Hinduism can be interpreted as polytheistic or pantheistic. I’m tempted to say that Hinduism is rather polytheist, while Buddhism is rather pantheistic. But then again, it depends on the tradition. (Some historical views of Buddhism sees it as atheistic!)
Similarly, the modern New Age movement is practiced as polytheism by some practitioners and as pantheism by other practitioners. (I probably journeyed from being a monotheist [cultural religion], to a polytheist New Ager, to a pantheist, back to a monotheist. But at least now I know my monotheistic views are personal and not due to my culture.)
In polytheism the deity/deities are more personal and/or individualistic entities. The pantheistic God is more abstract and impersonal.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are monotheistic religions. Many of the ancient religions were polytheistic. A modern day polytheistic religion is Shinto (the traditional Japanese religion).
Distinction is sometimes made between hard polytheism and soft polytheism. In hard polytheism the gods are quite distinct entities and can (and often do) engage in confrontation with each other. In soft polytheism the deities are rather different aspects of a single god/goddess that manifests in different entities.
Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish polytheism from pantheism. Depending on the tradition, Hinduism can be interpreted as polytheistic or pantheistic. I’m tempted to say that Hinduism is rather polytheist, while Buddhism is rather pantheistic. But then again, it depends on the tradition. (Some historical views of Buddhism sees it as atheistic!)
Similarly, the modern New Age movement is practiced as polytheism by some practitioners and as pantheism by other practitioners. (I probably journeyed from being a monotheist [cultural religion], to a polytheist New Ager, to a pantheist, back to a monotheist. But at least now I know my monotheistic views are personal and not due to my culture.)
In polytheism the deity/deities are more personal and/or individualistic entities. The pantheistic God is more abstract and impersonal.
The fifth (copout) worldview
In the previous post on worldviews I listed the four fundamental worldviews, namely theism, deism, pantheism and atheism.
I also mentioned that we have no definite proof for which one is true – although there are some very good reasons to assume one over the other.
Following from this, there is a fifth worldview position, namely Agnosticism, i.e. the belief that one cannot know whether God exists or not, or the belief that one cannot be certain what to believe.
Unfortunately the agnostic copout is not a sustainable position to take for at least two reasons.
Firstly the agnostic standpoint is self-refuting. When one believes that everything is unknowable, that is in itself a certainty. It is knowable that everything is unknowable; thus self-refuting.
Secondly, all our actions (and reactions) stem from one worldview or another. An agnostic can be agnostic in theory, but never in practise.
If you wants to be an active member of society, or an active partaker in your own life, you need to think carefully about the worldview you choose. And in the end, it is a choice, and every choice has consequences. For instance, your worldview will influence your morality, vocation, etc.
I also mentioned that we have no definite proof for which one is true – although there are some very good reasons to assume one over the other.
Following from this, there is a fifth worldview position, namely Agnosticism, i.e. the belief that one cannot know whether God exists or not, or the belief that one cannot be certain what to believe.
Unfortunately the agnostic copout is not a sustainable position to take for at least two reasons.
Firstly the agnostic standpoint is self-refuting. When one believes that everything is unknowable, that is in itself a certainty. It is knowable that everything is unknowable; thus self-refuting.
Secondly, all our actions (and reactions) stem from one worldview or another. An agnostic can be agnostic in theory, but never in practise.
If you wants to be an active member of society, or an active partaker in your own life, you need to think carefully about the worldview you choose. And in the end, it is a choice, and every choice has consequences. For instance, your worldview will influence your morality, vocation, etc.
Worldviews
There are basically four worldviews – ideas of how everything came about and function.
These worldviews are pre-religion, pre-science. In fact, religion and science build of off these worldviews.
Theism is the idea that a Creator created everything. The Creator is not Itself part of creation, but is actively involved in it. Some theistic religions include Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Deism is very much like Theism, but unlike Theism the Creator is not actively involved in creation. Usually the Creator is also not actively “conscious”. Some of the indigenous African religions are Deistic.
Pantheism is the idea that God is in everything and everything is God. The Creator is the creation – creation is the Creator. Pantheistic examples are Hinduism and the New Age movement.
Atheism is the idea that there is no God. Everything that came about (creation) came about spontaneously. Modern science is often atheistic. (Thus, atheism and modern science is build on the assumption that "things" can spontaneously just exist. Atheism and modern science is therefore also a belief-system, since it, like all other religions, are build on an initial assumption.)
For all practical reasons it is impossible for us to know which of the four is true. However, the moment we start any discussion on reality, religion, science, morality, justice, etc. we are assuming one of these four views. We assume one of them as a priori.
These worldviews are pre-religion, pre-science. In fact, religion and science build of off these worldviews.
Theism is the idea that a Creator created everything. The Creator is not Itself part of creation, but is actively involved in it. Some theistic religions include Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Deism is very much like Theism, but unlike Theism the Creator is not actively involved in creation. Usually the Creator is also not actively “conscious”. Some of the indigenous African religions are Deistic.
Pantheism is the idea that God is in everything and everything is God. The Creator is the creation – creation is the Creator. Pantheistic examples are Hinduism and the New Age movement.
Atheism is the idea that there is no God. Everything that came about (creation) came about spontaneously. Modern science is often atheistic. (Thus, atheism and modern science is build on the assumption that "things" can spontaneously just exist. Atheism and modern science is therefore also a belief-system, since it, like all other religions, are build on an initial assumption.)
For all practical reasons it is impossible for us to know which of the four is true. However, the moment we start any discussion on reality, religion, science, morality, justice, etc. we are assuming one of these four views. We assume one of them as a priori.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)