Originally posted by sonhouse
IF there was a god, it might think like this, where you insert what a real god might be like. So your religion goes, this god would NEVER be jealous. This god would NEVER be spiteful, this god would be above all that with just one overriding attribute, unconditional love.
You could reference to that kind of god, knowing full well there may not be such a ...[text shortened]... med at lifting the spirits of mankind.
Why didn't THAT kind of religion start 3000 years ago?
I think perhaps this (otherwise good) post somewhat confuses and conflates belief in something called “God” with the following:
--A particular god-concept: that of a supernatural, separate, personalistic being or entity.
--A god (or at least a theism) that has the nasty attributes that you list.
--What humans say and write about what they call “God” (even if they claim that their scriptures actually come from “God” ).
--And, perhaps, a particular way of reading said scriptures: as descriptive or propositional prose to be taken as literal/historical fact.
All of the above represent, when conjoined, a particular religious “matrix” that is not universal, and has never been universal. (See my post on page 5 of the “Adieu” thread, which apparently was in reaction to this one). Granted that such religionists tend to view all challengers as heretics - if not atheists and “god-haters”.
Consider the following from the Sufi non-dualist Ibn Arabi:
My heart has become able
to take on all forms.
It is a pasture for gazelles,
for monks, an abbey.
It is a temple for idols,
and for whoever walks around it, the Kaaba.
It is the tablets of the Torah,
and also the leaves of the Qur’an!
I believe in the religion of Love,
whatever direction its caravans may take,
for Love is my religion and my faith.
—Ibn Arabi
Here is my own (admittedly clumsy) offering from a non-dualistic point of view:
“God”
is one of many names
for the whole,
indivisible and vibrant
orgasm of Is,
of which
we are—
And your religion of
who and
whom
will only succeed
in perpetuating the illusion
of your own
coitus interruptus.
—Vistesd
And, less clumsy I think (or at least more poetic):
Fana
As long as there is herself and myself
—beloved and lover, an imagined mirage
cast in a dream of two mirrors—
love is the desperate, jealous flame of desire.
When the images join in a singular form
—returning to only Ourself and no other—
then love is the passion and pulsation of One,
forgetful of dreams imprisoned in a mirror.
And it begins again until it ends,
this rhythm of form and fullness and form.
“How silly for the single flame to fear
annihilation in the larger fire,
or waterdrop to be afraid to fall
again into the vastness of the sea”—
—Vistesd (
fana might be best translated as “dissolving” )
Because our language is so often dualistic in grammatical form, even poetry - even by non-dualists - often employs dualistic and personalistic metaphors (as does mine above, as well as the following from another Sufi):
I will incinerate this creed and religion, and burn it.
Then I will put your love in its place.
How long must I hide
this love in my heart?
What the traveler seeks
is not the religion
and not the creed:
Only You.
—‘Ayn alQozat Hamadani
And this, that was originally posted by our “god-hating” atheist friend LemonJello:
"There is only one reason
We have followed God into this world:
To encourage laughter, freedom, dance
And love.
Let a noble cry inside of you speak to me
Saying,
'Hafiz,
Don't just sit there on the moon tonight
Doing nothing'..."
—Hafiz
Again, these are not new notions of either “God” or religion. They are just foreign (and threatening) to a
particular - admittedly conventional, at least in the “Christian West” - theism.
NOTE: I am
not saying that
you are confused! I suspect that you know precisely which “conventional theism” you are critiquing.