Spirituality → Discussion•
God, cows, milk and cheese...   11-15>|


Sponsor
FirebringerSep 20, 2004 7:08pm
Meister Eckart once said, "most men love god for the same reasons they love their cow; for the milk and cheese it gives them".

I seem to see a lot of that in the broad expression of human spirituality. Is the common view of God/universe/supreme being/goddess, etc., a variation on the Santa Claus theme; one who gives you things if you are good?

Sponsor
jhanajianSep 21, 2004 12:34am
Actually, most of us love our own mothers because of the the milk and cheese (i.e., the love and/or the life) she gives us. I don't see anything wrong in it. It's just the way things are. So if we love God (or existence or whatever) because of the good things it gives us, such as the air we breathe and this beautiful life that we've done nothing to deserve, then so what? Gratitude is the closest thing to prayer that I know of. What's wrong with loving that which gives us life because it gives us life? So maybe the Hindu's have a point in worshipping cows. The cow's milk and cheese can certainly symbolize life, and so why couldn't the cow be seen as a surregate mother or even as a surregate god? Whatever! I don't know if Meister Eckart expressed an opinion regarding his statement, but as far as his statement goes, I agree with him - that is the same reason we love God. And so? Is there a better reason?

But I disagree with you on two other points: One, that there is, in the first place, a 'common view' of God. Two, that there is even remotely a universal view of God as a Santa Clause type who rewards us for being good. Even those religions which do traditionally expound a view of God as a Santa Clause type have pretty much given that idea up. It's an established fact that the sun shines on both the saint and the sinner alike; and likewise, bad things happen to good people, everyday! And the cow continues to give milk and cheese whether you're good or not.

On the other hand, those who 'love' God because they expect to be rewarded don't really love God at all; they're just trying to work a business deal with existence.

Sponsor
FirebringerSep 21, 2004 8:49pm
Of course, I can't read Eckart's mind, but the gist of what my reading suggested his intent might be is summed up in your last sentence. Is it important to "love God"? Beats me... as a Buddhist the notion is a bit foreign. Additionally, if I was God, I don't think I would care if people loved me nearly as much as I would like them to love each other.
143741Sep 21, 2004 9:03pm
jhanajian, I agree with most of what you say. That which I do not agree with is that there is no common view of God. I have to qualify my statements in that the atheist does not believe in a God, and there are other beliefs that put God into a different perspective than I am proposing. That said, I believe that most people who believe in God, look upon God as an external entity, separate from one's self; someone that manipulates the creation by adjusting when and where it is deemed by God to be necessary, or sometimes by requests in the form of prayer.

Personally, if there is a God, I believe God to be impotent, in that God would have to be all that is. If God is all that is, then God is not a separate entity that is screwing around with things. If, as is stated, God is perfect, then why would God need to mess with a perfect creation. Whatever is necessary is already here.

Just a thought.

Sponsor
jhanajianSep 22, 2004 3:44am
Firebringer, I got the impression from Eckart's statement that he viewed 'love of god' as something trivial and stupid because, as he said, people love god for the same reason that they love their cows. It is that viewpoint that I addressed. I did not address the question of whether or not it is important to love god. That is a BIG question. Do I personally feel that it is psychologically healthy to feel some kind of love or reverence for this ??? -- what's the word for it? Taoism says there is no word for it, so I'll just call it Existence. -- Yes, I do. Do I feel that it is psychologically unhealthy not to feel any love for 'it'? Not necessarily. I just think it's a matter of individual inclination.

FluidGuy, your description of God is a western perspective of God based on Judaic/Islamic/Christian tenets. If you want to split hairs about what constitutes 'most people,' you are probably on the right track since Christianity in itself accounts for the world's largest (people wise) religion . But even so, a majority view is still not the same as a common view. And it is the 'common view' of God that I said does not exist.

There are many differences in the perceptions of God which could be pointed out, but the one you brought up is one that deserves particular attention. There are several religious perspectives (Hinduism, for one) which do not view God as something separate from Creation. God, the creator, is not something separate from the creation. In this view, God is not like a painter who is separate from his painting - the creator and the creation are separate. It is more like God is a dancer (Shiva, the cosmic dancer) who cannot be separate from the dance. So God is not separate from us. God is the dancer, and everything - from the farthest star to each blade of grass - is involved in the dance.

Another point of view is whether God is personal or impersonal. Christianity, etc. sees God as being totally personal. He is concerned with (and watches and judges) each and every one of us. However, there are other views of God in which God (one word for it) exists but is impersonal. I myself think it is the height of egoism to think that God takes a personal interest in me, but I suppose such a view has it's advantages.

p.s. FluidGuy, I think the word you wanted to use in your second paragraph is omnipotent rather than impotent ... :-))
143741Sep 22, 2004 7:24am
jhanajian, I truly did mean impotent. It is the impersonal God to which I refer. The comment revolves around the idea of God using time and space to take a look at itself. Being an infinitesimally small part of the dance, I am, simply, what is. I am beginning to sound foolish, because I am trying to express something that does not fit into the words that are available to me. It is like my being impotent to do something about the fact that I am Caucasian. I simply am, and that makes me impotent to do anything about it. I am the dance, I am part of what is. Time has made it possible to divide me up into many constituent parts, but without time, I simply am; without space, you and I are no longer separate. (Personally, I think God should get an A+ for coming up with the idea of space and time.)

Sponsor
jhanajianSep 22, 2004 11:50am
Sorry about the misunderstanding, fluidguy. I'm trying to understand what you are saying, but truthfully I'm having a very hard time of it. I don't understand how God could possibly be viewed as impotent. In the concept of God as a dancer, god is perpetually reproducing itself, it is constantly bringing new life into being, it is eternally spinning form into formlessness and back again. Not exactly my idea of impotence.

In your second sentence, I'm not sure, but it sounds as if you might be questioning whether god, as a whole, is capable of consciously taking a look at itself, and consequently altering itself. And if that is what you are questioning, all I can say is that it beats the hell out of me! The question itself is way out of my league, much less contemplating an answer. So, I'll just leave that one for you to ponder, thank you.

As to your contention that it is time and space which separates us, I would have to disagree. I would say that it is time and space which 'apparently' separates us, but does not really. Actually, I just came upon an article a couple of days ago which I found quite intriguing. It explores the concept of god as Shiva the 'biodancer.' If you care to take a look at it, it is at:
hinduism.co.za/newpage11.htm [hinduism.co.za/newpage11.htm]

jhan

Sponsor
FirebringerSep 22, 2004 3:28pm
Fluidguy - I've heard the notion of an impotent god before - if we are referring to a god who is immersed in, and subject to, the same rules as the rest of the universe. In order for a god/goddess to be omnipotent it/he/she would, supposedly, have to be seperate from the "all that is" to act upon it.

Difficult concepts.

What if, in the absence of time as a universal absolute, (as current physics holds) that all possibilities, and all choices are made. At every branch of the decision tree all decisions are made and all possibilities move forward. Like fractals without dimensional limitations. If that were "reality", would the notion of a seperate god/goddess/intelligence matter?

Sponsor
jhanajianSep 22, 2004 10:21pm
Firebringer, it sounds as if you are saying that god is either omnipotent or impotent, there is no possiblity of anything in between or besides. And the further implication is that if god is not omnipotent, then god is not god.

I personally think all this concern with God's impotency or omnipotency says a lot more about us than it says about god. It's just one more expression of our usual obsession with power. And why are we so obsessed with power? Because deep down we feel weak. So we project our need for power onto an 'omnipotent' God.

And really, what need is there for God to be omnipotent? Can't God be wonderfully creative (and procreative) without being omnipotent? Can't God be awesomely beautiful without being omnipotent? Can't God be the deepest, most intriguing mystery man has encountered yet without being omnipotent? So to me, this question of omnipotency or impotency just doesn't touch upon anything that's really relevant about God at all.

And anyway, I certainly haven't seen any indication that God is either separate from existence or omnipotent. If God were omnipotent, then he/she/it could certainly be held accountable for allowing all the pain and suffering that have ever happened in this existence. But then again, God might make a good scapegoat.

A couple of other questions: What are we under the control of an omnipotent God? Nothing but puppets. Not much dignity in that. And likewise, what are we as the offspring of an impotent God? Even less dignity in that. I don't think either scenario fits the bill.
143741Sep 22, 2004 10:25pm
jhanajian - in your first paragraph, whether or not God is impotent or omnipotent depends on the perspective. I tried to express the idea that for the concerns of my individual life, God is impotent. When viewed from the perspective of God creating the universe or the dance, then obviously God is omnipotent. For all intents and purposes, I am invisible to God in the same way that an individual cell in the heel of your foot is invisible to you. You are perfectly capable of manipulating your body to your will, but the life of that cell in your foot is invisible in the immensity of the forest, so to speak.

Your second paragraph, pretty much sums up my comment. In your third, I agree that the separation of self and others is illusionary, but it is the illusion created by time and space which are malleable. I am looking forward to reading the article you mention. I will comment further after I have studies its contents.

Firebringer - in your first paragraph, it is the notion that "all that is" is God, and/or vice versa. The laws governing "all that is" are God. It is kind of like standing up and dancing a jig. All that you are, is the dance. When I was speaking of time and space, they are God's thought. The moment this thought came to God, was the creation. Time and space are God's thought and "all that is" is God, so to speak.

I did not quite follow your third paragraph, but it reminded me of a thought that I had of why waste. At every juncture of a decision, why wast viewing what would happen if the decision went the other way. Why not start a parallel time line that can allow both sides of the decision to play out to their conclusions. Following this concept leads one to the true meaning of an infinite God. For, if God is omnipotent, it would certainly be within his purview. I believe this somewhat says the same thing you were saying, and likewise, raises the same question.


God, cows, milk and cheese...   11-15>|