I suppose this is my version of atheism: I believe in the divine, but I believe that as soon as humans start defining it, or approaches to it, they inevitably go astray.
Let us not blame the man for the religion foisted upon him after his death
That so many manifestly unqualified people feel free to publicly quote the Bible in support of their theology, and that they fairly often make a pile of money by doing so, subjects me to such unhealthy temptation that I too have succumbed and will take as my text John 17:21-22, New International Version, where Jesus states:
… that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:
This text is usually cited as proof that Jesus is God and for the moment let us grant that: Jesus is God. But granting that, mustn’t we also accept Jesus’ further point: that we too have the opportunity to be one with Him, and thus, we too can be God?
In fact, Jesus appears to be stating in the plainest language possible the core message of all mysticism: that even though humans live in separation, union is possible – that we poor, pitiful, separate and alienated humans can, by grace, directly experience unity with the divine.
If we take just one tiny step back from the idea of Jesus as a unique emissary from a personal god, and instead view him as a remarkable entry in the lengthy catalog of mystics and prophets who have always been with mankind, we can see that in his recorded sermons he addressed mysticism’s central theme, separation and union, not with unique authority, but with a unique metaphor: sin and forgiveness. Where the Buddha spoke of being asleep vs. being awake, and Mohammed spoke of rebellion and submission, and Lao Tzu spoke of being in and out of harmony with the Tao, Jesus used language that spoke to the hearts of his audience: being in and out of favor with a Father, being separated from him by our mistakes and weaknesses, and being reunited with him through forgiveness.
There exists a predictable religious dynamic, repeated dozens of times in the several millennia of recorded history. A prophet arises who directly experiences the unity of all beings with the divine. This prophet attracts followers, who nearly always miss the point; rather than seeking direct experience themselves, they instead venerate the man, eventually creating a religion that marginalizes his message of direct experience.
The case of Jesus and Christianity is a particularly grim example – it is a sad, true cliché that if the Christ showed up today, he would be welcome in very few of ‘His’ churches. But let us not blame the man for the religion foisted upon him after his death, rather, let us take his message to heart and proceed as he did, directly applying to the divine without the dubious assistance of churches or dogmas, and let us strive to be one with him, one with each other, one with god, one with all beings – let us strive to be one.
Follow this BS on Twitter.
Did you like this essay? You’ll love my books!
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 51 comments… read them below or add one }
Angus,
I’m going to write a blog about your post.
You are a unique blend; a self-described atheist. You also “believe in the divine,” or mystical unionism to be specific. To say “let us strive to be one” is the rallying cry of the pantheist.
“I suppose this is my version of atheism: I believe in the divine, but I believe that as soon as humans start defining it, or approaches to it, they inevitably go astray.”
Atheism is inherently a negative concept; there is no God (capital G). I was struck by the two times you said the words “I believe.” My two questions for you is, “How can you be absolutely sure that what you believe is true?” And how can you be absolutely sure that Jesus Christ is not God but a mystical prophet?”
Thanks for your thoughts, Justin. Of course, the two questions you ask of me can just as easily be asked of you.
Angus,
My answers to the questions is found in my blog post. Any comments are appreciated!!! :+)
I would like to point out that you didn’t really answer my questions; which is the point of my blog post.
Justin
Hello Brilliant One,
I see his (and her) reflection!
“being in and out of favor with a Father, being separated from him…” And the Goddess – the Mother. In fact both, in each of us – equally.
“That so many manifestly unqualified people feel free to publicly quote the Bible in support of their theology” I won’t quote the Bible but is it OK to quote the Kama Sutra or Tantric Sutras in support of my philosophy? (Oh, shoot, I’d really rather quote myself!) Seriously, this is what Tantra is all about. Sex is but one of the myriad vehicles one needs to truly understand the self as ‘other’. A little risk goes a long way to helping me understand the universal truth of spirit/me/body/love/mind/rock/anger/ocean/flower/oneness.
And…I have recently finished Herman Hesse’s Siddhartha (last read at age 16). I recommend it again for any who doubt that first hand personal experience is anything but the way to Truth.
Siddhartha is, of course, a great book, but my personal favorite by Hesse is The Glass Bead Game, which also has a strong reincarnation/salvation/enlightenment theme, expressed more academically. I guess I’ve read it eight or nine times.
Hi Angus,
I love the blog.
Question:
“How can you be absolutely sure that what you believe is true?” And “how can you be absolutely sure that Jesus Christ IS NOT God but a mystical prophet?”
Answer:
“By faith.”
Additional Question:
“How can you be absolutely sure that what you believe is true?” And “how can you be absolutely sure that Jesus Christ IS God and NOT a mystical prophet?”
Answer:
“By faith ”
AH … the mystery……..
Hey Audrey, nice to hear from you. Part of me has wanted to write a bear-baiting post in reply to the clueless Christian, but your reply was much defter. Thanks, and nice to hear from you!
cheers,
Angus
The site looks great Angus, best of luck with it.
I would imagine that Jesus or any other of the prophets or God herself are forever amused at how we as mortal beings endlessly parse tense and cadence in the written word of a language we created in an attempt to find the “true path”. I would hate to think that I’ve been wrong to worship wax fruit my entire life just because some typesetter had a hangover. A couple of years ago my father-in-law who is a practising Catholic was visiting and commented on an Ankh we had in a display. When my wife told him it was about 3000 years old he exclaimed that we’d been ripped off since there would have been no knowledge of Christ and the Cross that long ago. It’s little things like that and others (no cave paintings of a T-Rex, homosexuality being a mortal sin, etc) that would seem to tell a thinking person that no group has The Answer. Given that I stopped asking The Question. The next life will take care of itself.
We had an energy worker who invited us the the Harmonic Convergence back in 2003. According to her and her group there were eight celestial bodies that would be in a unique alignment not seen for millenia indicating a new era of enlightenment. Who was going to say no to that on a Thursday night? After about a half hour sitting on the floor and chanting my innervoice/spiritguide/whatever began to laugh at me and said to get up and go live life. When I told our host of this the next day she got very concerned and said she wanted to tell the group’s leader about my experience. She came back very excitied telling me that their leader was equally excited and really wished to speak about what had been communicated to me. Evidently being told you’re an idiot for chanting on the floor is a very good sign, spiritually speaking.
I will get the word out about otherbs.com. You’re going to piss off a lot of people.
Audrey,
Thanks for your reply. That is my point EXACTLY. Because of your post, I am going to write a post on my blog about the qualitative difference between the two faiths in your post. Faith is only as good as the object of faith.
The difficulty Angus has is that his post in is inconsistent and contradictory to his about page.
“”Belief is the death of intelligence.” says cult philosopher Robert Anton Wilson, and comic book writer Alan Moore adds, “The one place gods indubitably exist is in human minds.” These two quotations have served as cornerstones of my anti-faith for several years. ”
So which is it Angus, is “belief the death of intelligence” or do you “believe,” as you said in your post.
You can’t have it both ways.
By the way, I’m not being mean, I’m just politely pointing out an inconsistency.
Angus,
Your statement:
“The two statements add up to something like a personal code. Strive relentlessly for awareness of one’s own set of beliefs in order to transcend them…..”
Everyone has beliefs … including you … It’s not a matter of whether you believe, but what you believe. It is impossible for a finite creature to do otherwise.
But there is a difference between your beliefs and my beliefs. My belief is absolutely true because what stands behind them is revelation from an omniscient God Who knows everything about everything. The foundation of your system is a finite, limited creature who cannot possibly know with absolutely certainty.
Oh Justin, you’re so delightfully full of shit. It’s like you want to be logical, so you use logical sounding words like ‘inconsistent’ and ‘contradictory’. And if you really were logical, I could kind of respect that. But when push comes to shove, you pull shit like “Whereas, as Bible believing Christians, while our knowledge is limited (we are finite beings), what we know is absolutely true because what stands behind our knowledge is a personal, omniscient God, Who knows everything about everything, and has revealed absolute truth to us in the Bible.” (from your post) revealing that as far as you are concerned , logic is superfluous… you have revealed truth not, you know, ordinary truth that a person can arrive at, you know, logically.
So Justin, you’re trying to ride two horses at once. Either ride on logic, and struggle—like the rest of us—with the amazing lack of evidence for something as simple as Jesus’ existence, or ride on ‘truth’ as revealed to you by God and quit bothering those of us who are actually trying to use logic to arrive at answers.
You can’t have it both ways.
By the way, I’m not being mean, I’m just politely pointing out an inconsistency.
cheers,
Angus
You were a bit evasive about which way you wanted it … “Is belief the death of intelligence” or do you “believe?”
“Quit bothering those of us who are actually trying to use logic to arrive at answers.”
So far your arguments aren’t substantive … All you have done is throw insults like “clueless” and “you’re full of sh*t.”
But I will answer your questions; will you stop evading mine?
There is NO contradiction with my position whatsoever.
“revealing that as far as you are concerned , logic is superfluous… you have revealed truth not, you know, ordinary truth that a person can arrive at, you know, logically.”
You seem to need to understand the concept of logic. You can be logical but wrong. In a simple syllogism, you are only correct if your major premise is correct.
For example the follow syllogism is logical (but wrong!)
All chickens have five legs.
Henny Penny is a chicken.
Therefore, Henny Penny has five legs.
My statements are logical; the key is, “Is my Major Premise is correct?”
Everyone has a basis that they build their philosophy. Some build it on empiricism, others on rationalism — as far as me, my philosophy is absolutely true because it is based on revelation from an omniscient God. Your philosophy attempts to be irrational and rational at the same time.
Justin
Typical Christian, whining that he’s being insulted.
Not whining; could care less.
Any substantive response?
Maybe later.
But I’m curious, how are you sure that your concept of God is more accurate than, say, a Muslim’s or a Jew’s? In the end, aren’t you the one deciding that your god is omniscient, or aren’t you the one deciding that your revelation is authentic? Do I have to have the same revelation as you to believe the same thing you believe? Doesn’t your belief system come down to your decision to accept a revelation, just as mine comes down to accepting my own set of revelations?
If it comes down to you having a revelation, I can (grudgingly) accept that and wish you well. No use arguing about a revelation: I had one myself, and it took several years to get over it. But here’s the thing: what are you trying to convince me to accept? Your revelation? Then you get to be the foundation of my BS! Or am I supposed to have my own? And if that’s the case, why can’t you accept that I’m just fine in the revelation department, and don’t need yours? It seems like logic is the only way we have to evaluate revelations, but you declare that yours is beyond evaluation—I am simply to accept that it is authentic. Are you really so sure, Justin, that people with different BS than yours are having inauthentic revelations?
cheers,
Angus
And by the way, I did say you’re delightfully full of shit.
Finally, a substantive post — and one worthy of me making a post about on my blog. When I post it; I’ll reply here and lay forth my argument.
Oh goody.
Audrey,
As promised, here is the link to my blog post discussing your reply.
http://pullmanwainfoaboutjesuschrist.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/the-christian-faith-is-not-a-blind-faith/
Justin, you have said nothing. You are simply asserting that your god is omniscient without supporting that assertion. If that’s the best you can do, please stop bothering—that approach will not be effective with me.
Don’t worry; I was replying to her. Yours is coming tomorrow.
Justin
Careful, you may have to use actual logic.
I am the Creator – I am Creation
You are the Creator – You are creation
We are Creators – We are creation
Get Used to It…
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together…
goo goo joob …
-Thus spake the Walrus
Okay, so my first comment was a bit glib…
Throughout this thread I have read several references to belief and concepts. Concepts are just a bunch of bullshit ideas and opinions that someone dumped in your head, and then went on their merry way. Beliefs are just buying into those concepts without any personal proof on your part.
Does it really matter whether you are a died in the wool Atheist or a born again Billy Graham? Both will argue endlessly. Christianity (or ‘Churchianity’) says you must believe, or else….
And yet Jesus says, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free”. He doesn’t say, “You shall believe and it shall set you free”
I don’t know where it came from, but I was imbued with this thing called ‘free will’. It gives me the capacity to question. Again, many ‘Churchians’ say it is okay to use this free will, so long as you don’t question the authority of the Church or Jesus, or else…
I’ve a friend who is a devout atheist, and yet he once told me, ” I don’t believe in God, but one time I was standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon and I got this feeling that I can’t put into words, I felt a oneness and part of something beyond what I am”. hmmmm…. Doesn’t sound very atheistic to me.
Several years ago, I formed my own church, so far as I know I am the only member. I call it the the “Chruch of Unvarnished Truth”. I threw out all my beliefs and started over. I only let only that which I know personally. For example, I have always believed in the doctrine of reincarnation, but right now, I have no personal recollection of previous lives. So far now, I don’t believe in it. I suspect it exists, but what does it matter to me right now as I right this little missive. And I don’t think God or Jesus is gonna come down and bitch slap me, because I’m excercising the free will and discrimination.
(btw… Christianity is the only religion that doesn’t accept the doctrine of reincarnation, it was removed as a tenet of Christianity in the third century. If you look closely in the Bible, you can still find some reference it, but I digress)
goo goo joob, get used to it….
Thanks for your contributions, Bryan—I liked the first comment just fine, and the second is even better. Starting from scratch, and getting back to scratch as often as possible, is pretty much how I operate as well; check out my ‘About’ page.
cheers,
Angus
You have a faulty premise or presupposition; namely that one should “avoid the question of whether gods have any objective existence – after millennia, all we can really do is shrug this question off. One should simply insist on the irrefutable fact that gods certainly exist between human ears.”
For you revelation or truth is not absolute and objective; it is subjective and personal. But the revelation from the true God is objective, self-authenticating and absolutely true. Objective truth is congruent with reality; and needs no man’s approval in order to make it so.
Your problem is your presupposition that you (a finite creature with limited, imperfect knowledge) have set yourself as the ultimate criterion of what can and cannot be. The issue is presuppositions. All men, including you reason off the basis of presuppositions. The atheist reasons from the presupposition of man as the ultimate criterion of what can and cannot be. It’s not a shock what the atheist’s conclusion is. The same is true for the Christian, reasoning off the basis of the self-authenticating, objective, and absolutely true body of knowledge revealed by the omniscient God. The Christian reasons from God to God, just as the atheist reasons from man to man as the ultimate authority of the universe. All men reason in a circle; whether they like to admit it or not. You cannot escape your presupposition that you and your weak mind is the ultimate criterion of what can and cannot be. Nor can you prove that your weak mind should be the ultimate criterion of what can and cannot be.
But another problem is that you are contradictory. On the one hand, you say that one cannot ascertain reality with certainty, or as you put it, “I choose uncertainty.” Similarly in your about page, you have the following quote: one should “avoid the question of whether gods have any objective existence – after millennia, all we can really do is shrug this question off.”
In other words, absolutely true, objective knowledge is impossible; you opt for uncertainty.
BUT, on the other hand, you are quick to make an absolute statement; that I was clueless. In order for me to be clueless, your belief system (BS) has to be right and mine has to be wrong. Moreover, you made an absolute statement that the Bible is full of “fables” and is a “silly, old book.”
The very second you make an absolute statement or a judgment about another persons belief system, you undermine your own.
You are full of contradictions; somehow I doubt you will ever admit it. Undoubtedly, your response will be quite predictable.
Blah, blah, blah.
You’re avoiding the question: is your faith based on a revelation, and if so why should I be moved by your revelation? Or is it based on evidence, and if so why do you so obstinately refuse to present your evidence?
Actually, Justin, you’re the one who’s become sadly predictable.
“blah, blah, blah”
That’s your way of ignoring the following statement:
“You cannot escape your presupposition that you and your weak mind is the ultimate criterion of what can and cannot be. Nor can you prove that your weak mind should be the ultimate criterion of what can and cannot be.”
You really can’t prove it can you.
“You’re avoiding the question: is your faith based on a revelation, and if so why should I be moved by your revelation?”
I already told you, “revelation from the true God is objective, self-authenticating and absolutely true. Objective truth is congruent with reality; and needs no man’s approval in order to make it so.”
“why should I be moved by your revelation?”
Who said you were open-minded? The whole point of my post is that you are closed minded.
You’re avoided my challenge to ESCAPE your presupposition that you and your FINITE mind is the ultimate criterion of what can and cannot be. Nor can you PROVE that your weak mind should be the ultimate criterion of what can and cannot be.
Now you’re just being boring Justin.
“Now you’re just being boring Justin.”
Perhaps to you, but there are people who enjoy intellectual discussion, you know, discussion that is substantive and that doesn’t consist of name-calling.
When you come up with an answer, I’ll still be here.
Christians are always so whiny.
Justin, you’re the one who had the revelation.
You’re the one who decided it was authentic.
You’re the one who has decided that it is from God.
You’re the one who has decided that God is omniscient.
And ultimately, you’re the one your faith is based on.
Put another way, people who are not you, have revelations every day, from Gods that are not yours—how are revelations or Gods to be evaluated, other than by your simple (and increasingly dull) assertion that your God rules and all the other Gods suck?
cheers,
Angus
Oh wait, hold the line… something’s happening… COOL! Justin, guess what, I just had a revelation. It was from some being called the Flying Spaghetti Monster! It was awesome, and it was objective, self-authenticating and absolutely true! And the FSM says that your revelation is from a chump God that none of the other Gods will have lunch with because He’s such a dork. Sorry to be the one to break it to you. But you have to believe me Justin, because the revelation, like I just said, is objective, self-authenticating and absolutely true. Sucks to be you, Justin, worshiping the Dork God.
I’ve been waiting this whole time for you to fall back on FSM; I’m surprised it took you this long. (I was really hoping you would use Bertrand Russell’s celestial teapot; if for no other reason than for the sake of variety.)
You can’t have it both ways.
If you truly believe in FSM, then you have to:
(1) recant atheism.
(2) affirm that absolute, objective truth exists.
(3) recant rationalism and/or empiricism
(4) submit to the gospel of FSM as your authority.
Or
Admit that FSM does not really exist but is instead just a poorly conceived debating tactic that is insufficient in disproving the existence of a Higher Power beyond ourselves — INCLUDING PANTHEISM (gasp!).
Pick your poison.
God I hate Christians. They have caused so much misery in my life, in the life of people I love, and in the world. I’m kind of hating your sorry ass right now Justin; I mean, I am sick to death of you saying over and over and over that your god is better than others, without presenting a single reason why, except your belief. I will henceforth delete all your comments that don’t address that question. If you do come up with something, I’ll allow it. Good luck.
cheers,
Angus
The only proof of the Christian position is that unless its truth is presupposed there is no possibility of proving anything at all. I’m willing to discuss this point if you are willing after you cool off.
“Flying Spaghetti Monster”…that shit is funny!
“The only proof of the Christian position is that unless its truth is presupposed there is no possibility of proving anything at all.”
Then there is really nothing to discuss.
Angus
Shit! I always show up to these things late! Great post and cool discussion, if at times a little on the “My God’s dick is bigger than your god’s dick” kinda thing.
@Angus – Thanks for a great post, and if I’m reading into your point of view correctly, thank you for your respect of my “belief” in Jesus. Your point that:
Thanks for the excellent comment RP.
cheers,
Angus
“Let us not blame the man for the religion foisted upon him after his death”
You had me at this line.
I was going to immediately propose to you and then, alas, I see you’ve already done the “farm girl” thing so I wouldn’t stand a chance!
You rock. I’m adding you to my blog links.
AllieP
Just another farm girl…
Ugh…I just made the mistake of reading all of the comments to your brilliant post and just about lost my lunch.
RP pegged it when he described the kind of locker room brawl this discussion reminds me of.
You’re more patient than I am in engaging insanity, Angus. (It seems such a waste of band width, but then I’m a very, very NEW blogger. Maybe one day I’ll try to rationalize with someone similarly irritating.)
And oddly one of my very first posts on my blog was about this very subject. Christian religious righteousness (“I know the truth and you don’t”) just doesn’t make sense to me. Didn’t even make sense to me in elementary school!
I have faith plenty in the unseen. And even I can’t find anything to find faith with that humanity got only ONE revelation of Himself from the Creator of all that is. Christ surely rolls his eyes at what’s happened in his name in the past couple of millenia.
Allie
Thanks Allie!
First of all–great website and great posts! I love these kinds of debates.
Now my comment:
Justin wrote “Admit that FSM does not really exist but is instead just a poorly conceived debating tactic that is insufficient in disproving the existence of a Higher Power beyond ourselves…”
This is a common tactic used by Believers of Weird Things. They always ask a skeptic to prove the Weird Thing DOESN’T exist. If you ask them for an example of a single piece of evidence they would accept as proof the Weird Thing doesn’t exist, you get a “deer in the headlights” look. This is because they haven’t stopped to consider it is impossible to disprove the existence of an imaginary thing. So, I think there should be a new rule that whenever a Believer of Weird Things invokes the “prove it doesn’t exist” argument, they follow it up by giving you at least one example of what they might accept as evidence that could make them change their minds. I would be a great way to show they actually were open to real debate and not merely engaging in dogmatic rhetoric.
The other benefit of this rule would be this form of argument will eventually become as extinct as their Weird Things…
I’ve done that before, and you’re right of course, but it doesn’t phase them.
Tim wrote: “Justin wrote “Admit that FSM does not really exist but is instead just a poorly conceived debating tactic that is insufficient in disproving the existence of a Higher Power beyond ourselves…”
This is a common tactic used by Believers of Weird Things.”
wrong… I never asked Angus to prove that FSM doesn’t exist, and I told him to either admit it or
“If you truly believe in FSM, then you have to:
(1) recant atheism.
(2) affirm that absolute, objective truth exists.
(3) recant rationalism and/or empiricism
(4) submit to the gospel of FSM as your authority.”
Which he won’t, because he doesn’t.
Your statement: it is “impossible to disprove the existence of an imaginary thing.”
Wrong. God has put in you innate, intuitive knowledge that He exists. Denial of God does not mean that He ceases to exist, anymore than when a child closes his/her eyes and says “I can’t hear you,” means the parent does not exist.
“God has put in you innate, intuitive knowledge that He exists.”
And when I tell you that is not the case, at least for me… what? I’m a liar, because I tell you I don’t feel what you feel?
for you, it would seem that you do acknowledge some “Higher” being exists. You argue that it cannot possibly be the God of Christianity, and instead opt for a pantheistic god. That makes you a unique atheist.
Atheist probably doesn’t capture my beleif system. Christian certainly doesn’t.
Well, no argument about the Christian part.
“Atheist probably doesn’t capture my beleif system.”
Then why claim a “version” of atheism?
“I suppose this is my version of atheism: I believe in the divine, but I believe that as soon as humans start defining it, or approaches to it, they inevitably go astray.”
Why do you put up with that little Justin twit? The only thing he adds to the discussion is tension, and I for one don’t enjoy tension unless it’s in a song or a poem. Just delete him, Angus. PLEASE! Nobody in their right mind wants to read his BS. You might attract the kind of comments you deserve if readers didn’t have to wade through Justin’s tripe. Your writing lifts me up; then I read Justin’s comments and find myself feeling very sad. C’mon, Brilliant One, you owe it to yourself and to your readers to make coming here a more palatable experience. You’re the coach. Bench him! Or explain to me why you put up with him. Maybe it’s just a locker room guy thing and I’ll never get it. If that’s the case, then I shouldn’t be here in the first place and I apologize for intruding.
Oh, you should definitely be here and your comments are appreciated. I tolerate Justin because I understand his mindset rather well—I was in fundamentalist Christian cult for 17 years, and know the thought process from the inside. So I have some sympathy and some hope for Justin, especially since he has shown occasional flashes of humor and intelligence. Also, I asked him at one point to not simply make baseless assertions, or he would be ‘benched’ and, for the most part, he’s respected that. I suppose he’s still on probation.
Thanks for weighing in!
cheers,
Angus
I can only quote from Sir Richard Burton’s poem The Kasidah:
…
When doctors differ who decides
amid the milliard-beaded throng?
Who save the madman dares to cry:
“‘Tis I am right, you all are wrong?”
“You all are right, you all are wrong,”
we hear the careless Soofi say,
“For each believes his glimm’ering lamp
to be the gorgeous light of day.”
“Thy faith why false, my faith why true?
’tis all the work of Thine and Mine,
“The fond and foolish love of self
that makes the Mine excel the Thine.”
…