Good post.

The ‘god’ of the state, the ‘god’ of theism, the ‘god’ of xianity are different, very different. To mark differences, I’ll use ‘Deus’, ‘Theos’, and ‘God’ as their proper names.

Let’s first consider the presence of MSG in the Western cultural diet.

Not the stuff that gives you headaches from Chinese restaurant take-out. No, I mean the Minimum Standard God. Philosophers can indulge themselves forever, and evolutionary biologists can await life’s arising from some self-organizing system. But, the U.S. Federal Courts have had to bring some reasonable specificity to the meaning of the word, ‘god.’

And, the winner (surprise!) is one deistic divinity — what I call the Minimum Standard God within the Western Tradition, “MSG” for short.

Courts have consistently held that ‘God’ as in the notorious “In God We Trust” refers to a one-size-fits-all unique deistic divinity — creator, sustainer of the universe consistent within Western tradition. The Deus of the state belongs to no religion. It is an hypothesized philosophical entity.

Just add personhood and meaningful interaction with human beings, and MSG thus “enriched” becomes SG, the supposed Theos outside of any particular big-3 monotheism. He (it’s default gender is male) is also an hypothesized philosophical entity. Mental slovenliness being what is, Deus takes on a coloration of Theos in popular culture.

I expect U.S. courts to trot out MSG as precedent for beating back an atheist’s challenge to the ‘under God’ clause in the pledge of allegiance — Deus is today invoked before each Supreme Court session and each House of Congress opens with a prayer — recently by a Hindu who was booed from the House Gallery by radical xian know-nothings. (Deus not Theos was clearly the object of address.)

The courts will argue that the concept of MSG does not violate the establishment clause. Traditionally, most Westerners averred that MSG would answer their minimal notion of a ‘god.’ The MSG concept is certainly non-sectarian.

No one is legally obligated to equate MSG with that moral monster embraced by the late (unlamented) “Rev.” Falwell. Or, the merely xian “God” of C.S. Lewis. Or, “God” as Paul Tillich’s “ultimate concern.” And, the deist can claim that God has no more interest in the universe than the gods of Epicurus.

>> “I ask God to rid me of ‘God’.” [Meister Eckhart]

Unfortunately, tradition also dictates that MSG exists. It leaves open any god hypothesis, except of course denying the existence of a unique god, however bland. That is however “logically weak” or “pared down” the concept. (MSG is “weaker” than SG.)

Still remaining outside the sheepfold: secular humanists, Buddhists, Chinese ancestor worshipers, Shintoists, traditional Hindus, Wiccans, assorted polytheists, devil worshipers . . . those few too principled to be hypocrites . . . and legions of the wholly indifferent.

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution actually guarantees freedom of conscience to each citizen. Thus, each person is free to deny even the MSG of blessed tradition and to seek the foundations of morality in philosophy rather than theology, for example.

Western tradition is also androcentric and paternalistic. That’s why MSG slyly assumes a masculine coloring (“He”), certainly not “She”, instead of the correct “It.”

Some xians can perhaps jettison God’s misogyny and masculinity as culturally limited metaphor, but it’s hard to see how personhood could be eliminated as Hinduism has done with the Absolute (Brahman). And by parity of reasoning, Islam and Judaism are likewise inflexible.

In general xianity has to grapple with how much of its so-called sacred text can be characterized as time-bound metaphor, myth-managed history, and quietly ignored. This task has been on-going for about 200 years under titles like “higher criticism” and “de-mythologicizing the NT.” [You can make evil spirits fly from the mouths of fundies if you dare to utter either of these phrases. Atheist exorcism!]

bipolar2
copyright asserted 2007

“That is, our religion is from the Creator. It is a result of our hope and trust in God. It is the natural fruit. False religions have stolen from God and not the other way around. False religions have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term “Justification.” They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation.

We have to separate the biblical Jews from religious Jews. One had hope in the Messiah’s coming. They acted as a result of this promise. King David loved God because of the promise given to him by faith. The religious Jew (Judaism), as in the case today, denies Jesus and attempts to bring to God their religious efforts.

A religion that is pure in the sight of God is a “discipline” which results and originates, from God. We do these things as a result of being justified. We do these things because God has declared us “not guilty” because of the passive/active obedience of the Messiah being given to us as a gift. His works are what save us. In contrast, the religions of the world who deny justification seek to bring their “religious” efforts to God to “save” them.

Don’t let that word religion, be a hindrance. We as believers have a beautiful religion because it is a fruit which comes from God. It starts with him and ends with him. Like I said; the religion we show is a result of what God did. It is an external response. For example, we love because he first loved us right? The false religions out there have a completely different gospel. As a result they bring their filthy rags and present then to God thinking they are working their way to God. We have been made clean by the word. The false religions make themselves clean.” (Moshe, carm.org)

Thus, one need not reject the Bible only after reading it cover-to-cover; one can find discrepancies between the Bible and reality and decide it’s bunk based on those.

This objection (diversionary as it may be) is belied by the fact that there are Bible scholars who, after devoting years of study to it, decide that it’s bunk. Not that this satisfies your usual apologist, they’ll just launch into another diversion, that being that the person who studied the Bible for years never studied it “correctly.”

At any rate, it’s all just a diversion.

Good. I like it. Says a lot toward dismissing the “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” mindset.

Belief – singular.

I think for me the belief has to be tried and tested in the realm of reality (it needs substance) – or the idea has to be tested in reality.

If someone asks me to ‘love my neighbor’ (idea) – then I need to take that and figure out what that means in the day to day setting. Love – how? Neighbor – is who? What are the benefits and drawbacks? It’s a process and beliefs are not set in stone – they are learned, practiced, adopted, then refined…process does not truly end.

If a belief fails this test – for example ‘violence is okay in any and all situations’ – then we drop it from the paradigm altogether – replacing it with what does work – for example – situational ethics and how we handle other’s emotions – this changes.

I think that is the pattern that defines my belief system – it has to be lived, felt, or observed before we outright dismiss it (first 2 build stronger conviction than the 3rd). This is rational.

Now if we get into beliefs we can do nothing about – for example a Trinity – then what? To be honest, acceptance or rejection of that belief does nothing in particular for you. This is another shade of what ‘belief’ means that I have also noticed. These beliefs get people kicked in and out of church – yet in all reality – they do not affect the way ‘you treat another’. So with these beliefs they either ‘are’ or ‘are not’. And to me, I can wait to find out (it’s no biggie).