Is God really . . .

 Okay, if there is only one god (or pantheon), then why is the message so different between the religions?

I'm glad you asked.  Is the message really that different? Sure, the modern versions of each religion seem to be drastically different from one another. But let's look back at the messages of the founders of each religion; before the dogma and before later people expounded on the original message. Let's look at the truly illuminated soul and what they had to say.

Without exception, they all say that what is important is loving one another. What matters is the awareness of the universality of everything. Their messages are to bring people together. They all chastise ego-centric behavior and encourage compassion. What every great religious founder asks of their followers is to love compassionately and to act on that behavior.

So why is the theology so different? Have you ever tried to explain sex to someone? Would you describe it the same way to a five year old as you would to a 15 year old or a 35 year old? Would the analogies be the same? First off, we cater the description to the audience; not just their age, but their understanding. Examples would be based off of common cultural knowledge. If you are describing god to a child versus an adult, you would use different examples. The same goes for different cultures.

Since the goal of the teacher is to get the point across to the learner, the examples that best convey a meaning is one that the learner understands. So it goes with describing god. Different cultures use different examples. When foreign cultures hear the example, they apply their own cultural understanding of the example, which may contradict the original culture's understanding, and interpret based on what they know of the example used.

Even the examples used by someone two thousand years ago may no longer be good examples for today. If we want to know the true meaning of what was taught two thousand years ago, we need to understand the culture of that area at that time. Only then, can we glean the original speaker's intent and meaning.

God of who?

 Let's start with eliminating everything we "know" and rebuild our understanding. Let's start with a few assumptions:

• There is a god.
• God created the universe we know.

Okay, with that little bit, what do we know? Who are "God's People"? If god created Adam and Eve, then god created the first people (who would, over time, be the ancestors of the Jewish people.) Did other gods create the other people, or are Adam and Eve the first humans anywhere on the planet? If they are the first humans anywhere, then god is the god of all people, not just one group of people. Other people believe their god created all people. In order for that to be true, the one god showed up in different areas describing the creation differently. Can that be possible?

Perhaps. If we talk to a group of scientists, we would use stories and analogies that are scientific in nature. If we were to talk to a bunch of pre-schoolers, we would use different stories. Same is true if we were to talk to artists or truck drivers. The examples we would use when we talk to a group of people is going to be different. The message might be the same, but the examples and terminology would be something that would suit the audience.

It would stand to reason that a god would use different examples and phrases for different groups of people. It would stand to reason, then, that there might just be one god who created the universe and all of the people in it. We have different images of who god is because the way god talked to us is based on the language and examples we understand.

What laws, and is that all?

 James, the brother of Jesus, was asked what gentiles must do to "obey the law". What laws must a christian obey? James' reply was that gentiles, in order to obey the laws Jesus referred to, follow the Noahide Covenant. What are the laws in the covenant from the "people side" of the equation?

• the positive injunction to set up courts that justly enforce social laws
• the prohibition of blasphemy, i.e. intolerance of worshipping the one God of the universe
• the prohibition of idolatry
• the prohibitions of grave sexual immorality, such as incest and adultery
• the prohibition of murder
• the prohibition of theft
• the prohibition of eating the limb of a live animal, which is a paradigm for cruelty

Courts

Let's go through them, starting with setting up courts. This is the only item that is not a prohibition. It does not define any specific punishments for crimes against the social laws. I'm assuming this has some latitude amongst people/groups as different desires will have different effects as they are removed or applied. I'm making a pretty large leap when I say that Jesus probably expected the courts would be on the more forgiving side and only dole out the most minimal of punishments needed to have the person comply with the laws of prohibition.

Blasphemy

Think of this as behavior that is rude and intolerant of God. Simply saying "Oh, my God" when surprised is not being blasphemous. Nor is "I swear to God." On the other hand, claiming god is non-existent or that god is meaningless would be. Having a discussion where one person take the side of the non-existence of God for the purposes of gaining a better understanding of God is not blasphemous, provided the person was doing it to gain a greater understanding and clarity on god.

Idolatry

Making an image of god is not idolatry. Adoring the image or object as equal or greater than god is idolatry. Making an image to remind you to think of god is a memory device. Thinking that same object represents god or that god is somehow imbued into the object is idolatry.

Incest and Adultery

Incest is defined as having sexual intercourse (of the type that could potentially produce a baby) between a person and their close relatives (anyone who would be the bloodline offspring of any of the person's grandparents... plus the grandparents themselves). Incest also includes sexual intercourse with one's own adopted children or anyone of their bloodline offspring. So, if a cousin has an adopted child, that sex with the adopted child would not be an act of incest.

Adultery is defined as a married person having sexual intercourse with a person other than their own spouse. Note, two unmarried people having sex is not adultery.

Murder

 The intentional killing of another human being is murder. Behaviors what the person could reasonably predict has a noteworthy probability of another person dying would be a grey area, but for the purpose of this list, would be included.

Theft

Taking something that does not belong to you, thereby denying the owner the right to enjoy it is theft. Borrowing something without permission and willingly returning it in the same or better condition before it is needed/wanted by the owner is not theft. So, as an example, taking someone's car while they are asleep and getting it serviced for them would not be theft, if it is returned before they wake up or need to drive anywhere.

Eating live animals

Removing a body part of a living animal, simply to eat it is cruel to the animal.  Plants are not afforded the same consideration.

These are the Noahide laws James referred to when he said that a gentile could follow the teachings of Jesus by obeying the law. According to Jesus, simply obeying the law is not enough. Give away what you own in this world to help those in need. (See the story of the rich man in the gospel.)

So, to be the best we can be, we must obey the laws listed above AND actively help those in need.

What's with the fear?

 I've been taught that God is a loving, personal god. People who describe their near-death experiences refer to a pervasive love. If that is so, then why do the leaders of the faith use fear and threats to demand conformity? "If you don't believe in Jesus, then you go to hell - forever." "You're a sinner and need to be saved." "God's vengeance will be on non-believers." "If you don't confess your sins (and do the penance), your sins will not be forgiven."

The basic process of acquiring and retaining membership seems to be:

1) acquire members... "God is love." "If you confess your belief, you will live forever." "Join us and feel included."

2) retain members... "You are a sinner and must confess if you want to go to heaven." "If you don't do what we say, God will cut you out."

What if it is more simple than all of this. What if God has created what we perceive as the universe to amuse/entertain. God truly loves what God created, and that includes everyone... not just the "faithful". Our souls, being part of the immaterial realm is outside of the physical realm (which is where time exists). Our souls will live on past our physical bodies. We don't need to be threatened by religious leaders to live on in the immaterial realm. It is part of God's creation.

So why have a religion? What do we gain by doing what God tells us to do? This universe is God's creation and God has a purpose for the whole thing. I don't know what that purpose is, but I can guess. My best guess is that God wants the universe to carry on and evolve. When we are hateful and destructive to one another, we risk destroying a part of God's creation. This is why God has revealed himself at various times to various cultures (each in a way that the culture would understand).

The message, while said in different ways at different times, comes down to the same tenets of our faith, namely: Love unconditionally. Encourage diversity. Be a humble servant.

Help. Love. Build. Coordinate. These are the things God wants for us. The things God wants us to avoid includes: selfishness, isolation, hierarchy, greed, and such. We need to spend less time threatening one another and controlling others with fear. This builds isolation instead of community.

Thoughts and Prayers

 The OED says "sympathy" is: feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune. Whereas, it defines "empathy" as: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. I have always divided them by how much intellectual versus emotional connection a person has for the other person.

Compassion, on the other hand, involves taking action on those feelings of sympathy and empathy in an effort to relieve the person.

While "thoughts and prayers" is technically an action, it is the very least action imaginable. Thoughts and prayers are really nothing more than washing one's hands of any effort beyond asking someone else to take care of it.

Praying to God to take care of something, which God has asked us to do, is rejecting God's request. How can we feel good about rejecting God's ask of us by simply handing the job back to God?

Occam's Razor

 What is the best analogy of God? Is God a loving, personal god that listens to and answers every prayer? Is God simply a creator who has otherwise abandoned the creation? Or, is God something in between?

Let me start out with an assumption: there is a god, or possibly at least one god. If we agree to the presumption that God created the heavens and the earth (aka the material and immaterial), then it is clear that God is outside of this universe. If that is true, then there is no proof of god we can create to prove one way or another of the existence of God. Our proofs are limited to our understanding based on the universe and not what is beyond it. We cannot measure God with material logic, for material logic is part of God's creation and not part of the realm of God. We cannot prove God exists using immaterial logic, for that too is equally limited. All we can do is simply choose to believe or not believe. I choose to believe.

I believe there is a God (or possibly more than one). That god is outside of our realm of existence. I'm not going so far as to say God doesn't interact with this realm. A person may write a message on a piece of paper. The person is not the paper, but can still interact with it.

So: God exists. God created this universe. God is able to interact with this universe. With the one main assumption, we can say a few things about God. Yes, I realize the other two statements contain some amount of assumption, but the amount of assumptions is rapidly coming to an end. For example, I can say God is able to interact with this universe because people throughout history have identified the divine involvement in a significant way. I'm willing to discount "every claim" of divine intervention as some of them could be explained away with simple natural phenomena or random chance. The fact that different cultures in widely different geographical locations all talk about a divinity and that divine being interacting with this world suggests that it is more reasonable to believe God can interact with this universe than not.

It even suggests that it has happened. Now then, does that mean God answers all our prayers? No. I'm not implying we can come to that statement yet, or ever. God can, and has, interacted with this universe? Yes. I can even go so far as to state that God has interacted with this universe in such a manner that humans have observed God's involvement. So... how frequently? Daily? I don't think so. I don't see God answering everyone's prayers. As a child, I asked God for a million dollars. I never got it. Does that mean God answered my prayer with a "no", or did God simply ignore/not hear my prayer? Either is equally likely.

Let's consider the lesson about God we can gain from both interpretations. If God said "no", then God is not really good at communication. Honestly, I asked many times with no apparent response. I would have thought that if God were to answer my prayer for a million dollars, I would expect that answer to be in a format I would understand. Imagine a grandparent talking to a teenager on the phone. The teenager is asking their grandparent to give them an expensive car for free. Would you say the grandparent is answering back if the teenager sees and hears nothing from the grandparent? What if the grandparent responds with having a cloud pass by outside the teenager's home after asking for a car. Would that be answering in a manner they teenager would understand as a response?

Then again, did God simply ignore me and my prayers? This is the more likely answer, but it doesn't address the individuals throughout history where God did answer, or more often, God contacted a person. In general, I think there is a good argument against God responding to a person's prayer/request using the laws of averages and the chance that the outcome would have happened without the prayer. But what about those times when God reached out to people?

There are not many of them, but they do seem to happen over the history of mankind. I'm lumping in all the religions as it can be argued that a religion is simply a culture's form of expression to describe a God's interaction with that culture. I'm not so shortsighted as to believe that God waited until the jews or christians to show up in a region before God began to interact with that geographical region. If God created a person who converted to "the faith", did God create that person's parents and other ancestors? If so, then wouldn't it be reasonable that God created all of mankind? Why then, would God limit his conversation to just one or two cultural groups when those people had no way to communicate God's message to the world of people? Occam's razor says that is not reasonable. Were all the non-jews and christians doing everything perfectly fine before jew and christians showed up such that God didn't need to send them a message? Did God decide to wait multiple generations of people, thousands of years, to tell another culture of people what God wanted people to know about? It is far more reasonable to suggest God talked to other cultures and people using that culture's knowledge and understanding to get the message across. Looking at the evidence of God's involvement, it seems that is is an intermittent involvement with one person at a time (or a very small segment of people).

So, where are we?  God exists (an assumption). God often does not respond to prayers. God does contact people with a message. It is not frequent (certainly not constant). We, and this universe is God's creation. It is unlikely that God created the universe to simply ignore it entirely. So, God has some interest in this universe and its outcome.

At the core of God's message, repeated to different cultures at different times, is a message to have people get along. As we say in the Church Of Doug: Love unconditionally. Encourage diversity. Be a humble servant. Why is every religion, at its heart some variation of these three tenets?

What if God created for himself a universally large Rube Goldberg machine with a godlike number of variables, including giving people some degree of free will? Consider a second analogy: imagine the universe is like a performer spinning plates on the tops of poles. The performer is trying to keep all the plates spinning so none of them fall down. If each plate was a Rube Goldberg machine and God was trying to keep them all running as long as possible, then God would go from plate to plate to give each one of them a touch on the rims to keep them spinning... or in our case God sees cultures not behaving in a manner that keeps the world of people alive and interacting and gives that culture a nudge to remind them that they need to change their behavior to match God's message, thus keeping the universe moving. God does interact with the universe when things deviate from God's desire to see the universe continue.

Yes, we are a small piece of the universe. Our existence on this one planet of this one solar system in this one galaxy . . . and we have only been in existence for a very short period of time. Perhaps part of the reason God isn't constantly with us is because there are other issues on other planets that needs God's attention too. If God made us, then we are, to some degree, part of God's plan.

This analogy would resolve the questions of what does God want from us? Why doesn't God just reveal himself to everyone at all time? Why God doesn't seem to respond to prayers (when the odds are not in favor of it happening)... and more. I'm not saying God is a child simply playing with a toy. This universe is divinely vast with an unbelievable number of variations (yet with a small set of laws of science) that we cannot comprehend God without some degree of description by use of analogy.

What can we know?

By now, I'm fairly convinced that the Pauline christianity is not the same as the way taught by Jesus. The book of James seems to conflict with Paul. The teachings of Paul conflict with the gospel accounts of what Jesus taught. Even the letters of Paul seem to be justifying why Paul disagrees with Peter and James.

Okay. So Paul is a false prophet who propagated a Hellenistic version of Judaism to gentiles using Jesus as the focal point of the Greek idea of a risen savior. I'm fine with that, because my focus is on the teachings of Jesus (Love unconditionally. Encourage diversity. Be a humble servant.) and not on the deification status of someone and how that belief is the only means of salvation. (Deification? Salvation? What did these ideas have to do with the teachings of Jesus?)

So, here is where I  have to wonder. The letters of Paul are early enough in the written works about Jesus that they are likely to have influenced later writings... such as the gospels. It is reasonably likely that the gospels were written in areas outside of Jerusalem or the communities directly associated with the original apostles picked by Jesus. (for example, the Ebonites.)

How then, can we be certain of separating the teachings of Jesus from something edited by the influence of Pauline thought? What WAS the teachings of Jesus?

The book of James appears to be more in line with a strong Jewish influence. Assuming Jesus was a Jew, his teachings would be jewish in nature. James, assuming James wrote said book (or was written by one of James' followers) is more likely to be in line with the teachings of Jesus than something from a person who never met Jesus.

Sorting out the wheat from the chaff becomes a complex endeavor.