Does God "Need" Anything?

I was recently reminded of the traditional theological view that God has no needs of any kind.  The question posed was: does God need us?  Good question.  It touches on the nature of God and the nature of our relationship with God.  I'll jump straight to the point: It seems to me that if God truly doesn't "need" anything, then the logical innevitable extension of this for us--is nihilism.  Because ultimately, essentially, we are unnecessary, expendible, and mere accessories to ultimate reality.  Any meaning we can possibly have is without foundation or ground.
But this idea of God needing, or not needing, also seems to presuppose God as a "being" -- as someone or something separate from things that God may or may not need.  But this is where traditional Christian theology/spirituality seems to confuse our idea and experience of "being" with God's.  The difference is that God is not separate or limited from anything.  If so, God would be limited in knowledge, in control or in some form of contact.  The "omni" of omnipresent, ominscient, omnipotent wouldn't be so omni.  Nothing exists outside of, or separate from, God.

No. If God has no needs it's not because God is isolated, beyond everything, self-contained and self-satisfied.  (God is not an old-man in the sky...). Rather, God has no needs because the question is of an entirely wrong category and premise. 

God has no need because everything is (already) IN God!

Now if we define "need" as related to a real and true lack (or sense of lack), then God has no need(s) because by definition God IS FULLNESS.  Numbers 14:21 "The Lord replied, ...as surely as I live and as surely as the glory of the Lord fills the whole earth,..." and Ephesians 1:23 "the fullness of Him [God] who fills everything in every way."

God is love, and perfect love is said to cast out fear.  Think about it.  Fear is ultimately a fear of loss (loss of life, loss of possessions, loss of security, loss of control or loss of esteem).  And how does love cast fear out?  By filling!

So it's not just that everything is within God but that God fills everything.  Or, if this panENtheism http://www.theopedia.com/Panentheism is making you uncomfortable, we can say "within God's sphere").  God fills everything.  And one of the things God fills, is us.

Ephesians 5:18 "...be filled (literally: be continually filled) with the spirit."  Not a one time event and also not a static reality because Spirit, like life, is dynamic, moving, changing, transforming... and filling.  Overflowing.

And even though this spirit, God, is mysterious and in many ways hidden, like the wind, we only know of this God--we only know this God--via, through, in and because of... material reality.  We only know of wind because we feel it on our skin, we see it move physical branches and tumbleweed. Think about it: you don't experience, you haven't ever experienced, and you cannot experience Spirit except through and in the physical realm--this body, these emotion, this mind, this heart, these relationships between people, between beings, between you and the world... the cosmos.  This says something about the relationship of things, the structure of reality, the value of physicality.  The idea of spirit and matter being two separate realities is non-sensical and totally unverifiable. 

And here's the thing: If your faith is rooted in any sort of dualism then you can expect that your seeking God will always and forever be a struggle, an uphill battle, a never-ending quest because you are trying to experience or know God in a way that God is not.  In a sense, you are a fish looking for water.

What (kind of practical joke) Would Jesus Play?

Does God laugh?
Does God have fun?
Christians talk about joy, and love, and delight and even pleasure.  But what about humor?

Does God play practical jokes?  Did Jesus? There sure would be a lot of opportunites with all those new disciples out of their comfort zones, trying to be "spiritual" like their master, perhaps overly zealous, etc., etc. When we was hanging out with prostitutes and tax collectors, did Jesus ever start a conversation with: "So this guy walks into a bar. . ."  And did Jesus ever laugh so hard he started crying, or pulled a muscle, or even wet himself?

And does God feel anything when I laugh?

We never live, or laugh, in a vacume.  We always laugh in relation to something: an amusing situation, an absurd behavior, a silly comment, an odd feeling.  So is laughter then essentially unifying?  Or, becuase it causes us to let go, to relax, does it create a moment of boundary-less-ness?  Where you forget yourself.  Could laughter be a form of self-transcendance, a type of "denying ourselves," that Jesus calls us to? 

God sees things exactly as they are.  Can laughter give us a taste of this clear seeing--a clarity where we relax into the present moment with all it's joy or levity or absurdity?

God is described as spirit.  And spirit is often linked with breath.  So what is the relationship between laughter and the movement of breath and the dynamic movement of God in and through our lives?

This Moment is the Perfect Moment...

I don't know if you can relate to this but the present moment often feels cramped.  It's constantly pestered by worries and regrets and hurts from the past.  And even distracted or interupted by good memories too.  And the present can be swamped by worries and hopes and plans for the future.  The past and the future can just sandwhich the present to almost a sliver and I miss the beauty right in front of me.  Or I'm not fully present for the conversation or fully available for those spoontaneous opportunities.  The picture above is a depiction of this state.

But really, the Present is all that there really "is."  The past and future don't actually "exist," as if they are some fixed entity or concrete reality.  Reality is right now!  And moment by moment.  In this sense, the present moment, though infintesimally small, has an eternal quality to it.  It has expanded so that that which is experienced is much bigger and broader, more detailed, richer and fuller.  In this state, the future is actually very close and seems to come much quicker.  Figure B depicts this, only I've included the concepts "Past" and "Future" to exagerate the effect of the deepened experience of the Present moment.

A friend of mine suggests that the past, rather than being seen as a vast, ambiguous smorgesbourg of memories (Fig. A), can be seen as a collection of individual "special moments." (Fig. C)

I like that and I think he's heading in the right direction. But I think we should take it one step further.  Memories are only "experienced" in the present (see Fig.D).  Basically, they cease to exist when they are not being recalled.  Rather than being part of this fixed and permanent "past" that continues to exist after we move on, past memories are actually a part of the present moment as they are being recalled in that present moment.  (One might argue that the physical or social or emotional "effects" caused by some action in the past carry forward, but even those "effects" are only ever experienced in the present moment).  So does this mean that when someone accuses you of "living in the past," this is actually just a "form" of living in the present?!?  = )

"Life is short" becomes so very true, because if we are truly living in the present, then we are living moment by moment and there is no "shorter" experience than a "moment."  Time, distance, etc., only have meaning when past and future are given weight.  Otherwise, a moment is eternal in quality, yet short in quantity.

A wise person has said that "the present moment is the perfect moment because it is the only moment."  We are always tempted to complain or compare the present food, or weather, or person, or emotional state to some past experience, but then we are comparing a present reality to a past memory which no longer exists.  There is always something worthwhile or even good in the present moment because of the fact that it is real.  I think this is what Zen tries to point to.  And when the Bible says that "Now is the day (or time) of salvation."  But if we filter the present moment through memories of a better past or hopes for a better future experience than we usually distort any possibility of experience reality as it is right now.  We lose the capacity to "be" or to experience "being."  Any possibility of a salvation or enlightenment related to a "becoming" only has substance in our ability to embrace this moment in it's fullness.  To be or not to be, that is the question.  And the answer.

(I must give credit to Alan W. Watts "The Wisdom of Insecurity" and Eckart Tolle "The Power of Now" and "The New Earth" for their inspiration regarding living in the Now).

Oh, What the Hell! (Questions to shake up notions about salvation and eternal punishment)

So at some point in this blog on spirituality, this topic of damnation and hell have to get dealt with.  There are so many other topics I'd rather deal with, but these points I raise helped create important shifts in my own spiritual journey and allowed me to move out of stagnant contentment with mere "beliefs" that had been unexamined.  If you've turned your back on any sort of traditional religious-spirituality this is probably one of the top reasons, or at the very least it's something you mock.  For others it's an awkard topic, leaving a bad taste in your mouth.  Or maybe something you feel very strongly about and feel ok with (this is of course easier if you're on the "saved" side of the equation.)  I was raised in a protestant evangelical Christian tradition but fortunately not in a "fire-and-brimstone" type.  Still, as a "seeker" and with a conviction that we need spiritual, moral, mental and physical transformation, this topic of salvation/hell always seemed to come around at some point.  And it can sure get a conversation heated (pun intended!).

Although the imaginary Q&A I outline later on is in the context of a Christian dialogue, this blog is intended for everyone and anyone, so take note there are some undeniable spiritual currents or similarities that recur in virtually all of the great religious traditions.  See if this short, simple list resonates with you (and of course it's not the last word on the topic).  This is from the book Integral Life Practice:

"Most of the traditions agree that:

1. Spirit, by whatever name, exists, and it is good, true, beautiful, and loving.
2. Spirit, although existing "out there," is also found "in here," revealed within to the open heart and mind.
3. Most of us don't realize this Spirit because we are living in separation, sin, or duality--that is, we are living in an illusory, fallen, or fragmented state. 
4. There is a way out of this state (of illusion, separation, sin or disharmony)--there is a path to our liberation. 
5. If we follow this path to its conclusion, the result is awakening, rebirth, salvation, or enlightenment, a direct experience of union with Spirit both within and without (and neither).
6. This supreme liberation marks the dissolution or transcendence of illusion, sin and/or suffering, and manifests in care and courage, service, social action, mercy, and compassion on behalf of the whole sentient Kosmos."

But what if we don't follow or discover or choose this "path"?  Now there are different ways to talk about this "salvation," even within one tradition, and one of those protestant christian views is the belief that salvation is very much like a legal transaction.  And if you are deemed guilty because of this "sin", you will be judged and eternally punished (ie. Hell).  So let me flesh this troubling topic out as an imaginary conversation:

Q.  A lot of people believe that humans are "born in sin."  That it's some sort of pre-established spiritual condition that occured because of an "original sin" commited by our ancestors.  How can you punish someone as a sinner if they're born that way--if that way of being is all they know?
A. Ah, well they still are born with free will and ultimately they will make a choice: God's way or their way.

Q. Free will?  If they were born in a state of neutrality where they had the liberty to choose either sin or not, then it would truly be "free will."   But how "free" is it if they are born in sin and predisposed to it??  The stakes are against them right from the start and it's hardly fair for God to hold them responsible for being in a "state" they never chose.  I think this notion of  being "free" to choose is a misnomer, but since you are convinced they have a choice, lets move on:  How or Why do people make that choice?  It seems to me that ulitmately it comes down to two possible reasons or causes: 

1. Predestination:  God gives us a boost.  God does something to help certain individuals see, to help us want Spirit, to make it easier to choose this path or salvation.

Or,

2. Free Will: Somehow on my own I see "rightly".  I make the right or good decision.  There is something within me that helps me make this choice.

Now when considering how few people seem to have been predisposed to chose God, option #1 just seems unfair, or sick, or at the very least, lame/pathetic.  And since this option seems ultimately up to God's perogative, why wouldn't he simply choose to predispose more or even all of us with that inclination for salvation?

Option #2 ultimately relies on some sort of determinism--why did that person choose the path?  Well, because of X.  And why did they have X and other people didn't?  Well because of a prior Y that led to X.  And why did they have a prior Y and not others?  Well, a prior Z that led to Y.  And this would go backwards infinitely, until something at their birth (ie. their personality or something they're born with), or pior to it (ie. something in their family's past or genetics, etc.).  If it's something they're born with, that's ultimately God's doing.  And if it's something prior to that, than it ultimately keeps regressing until Adam and Eve or a big bang--the explanation ultimately goes back to something God initiated.

So this leads to a 2ndary Question:  How can God judge people when their eternal "choice" is essentially "determined" by something or someone outside of them?  This not only seems unfair, but lacking in mercy, grace and love.

Q: Can God's judgment truly be greater than his Mercy, Grace and Love?
A: Well, the responsibility is in a woman's or man's hands.  God showed excessive mercy by sending His own Son, Jesus, to die for the sins of the world.  Now it's up to us to respond.

Q: So then what you're saying is that my salvation ultimately rests on my response, on my choice?
A: Yes.

Q: On me?  My decision?
A: Yes.

Q: Then my salvation is dependent on my personal ability, or my desire, or my conviction to "receive" Jesus (as my Lord and Savior)?  Or it depends on my ability to see that this is the right decision?
A: Yes!  Don't hesistate.

Q: Then it is basically true that we are saved by something we do, whether it's something we think, or we decide to believe, or we willingly allow or make a shift in our heart.  I have to do something.  It doesn't just happen. 
A: Right.

Q: Well, how is this any different than being saved "by works."  I thought Christianity was all about how there isn't anything we can "do" to "get to" God?
A: No, no, this isn't about "earning" or doing anything.  People are saved by "faith" alone.

Q: Where does this faith come from?  How does it originate or germinate?  Are we born with it or is it something we cultivate?  Is it something from God?  If so, does God supply faith to everyone?  How does he decide?  If the onus is on us, that seems to be free will and we're spiraling down that determinsm line.  It it depends on him, that points to predestination.

If faith is something we muster up, and have "enough of," something originating in us by our own free will, then faith is really simply another "work"--only in this case an inward "work" of our spirit, soul, and mind.

Most Christians don't allow for salvation by works.  And the idea of determinism seems to ultimately lead back to God's decisions/involvement and so ultiamtely some form of predestination. 

So all options seem to lead to the idea of salvation being one form of predestination or another.  Even though one's mind/heart might rebel at this (mind does), or even if you're ok with pre-destination, either way you have to deal with the apparent reality that most humans who have ever lived do not seem to have fit the criteria for having, at the very least, "accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior."  Which means--according to the typical Christian paradigm--that God in his predestining, either didn't, couldn't, or wouldn't save most of humanity.  So maybe God just wants quality, not quantity, and is ok with just a few making it.  But any sort of eternal punishment for the rest of us makes this seems very very cruel.  If God indeed wants a big "family" of sorts, than this minority of  "saved" people seeems a total failure.  And how can any notion of an eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing God include failure?  And the Bible itself says both that "God is love" AND that "love never fails."

I am tempted to end here, on a good note: the rhetorical answer being that God doesn't fail.  And the above Q&A's I feel are the strongest points.  Below are some other problematic things to ponder as well.

The consequences of this choosing or not, seem important too.

Q: Is it possible for a mortal human being, bound in time, to truly comprehend the significance of a decision having eternal consequences?  If it were possible, would you allow your 2 year old to make a decision that would affect their gettting into University or not, 16 years later?

Q: And if they really knew what or who they were rejecting (God and eternal life with God, a really good thing, no?) would anyone truly reject that?  The only explanation would be that they didn't really know what they were rejecting and so how can they be held responsible for that or allowed to do that?

Q: In terms of hell as eternal punishment: most Christians believe that Absolute Monarchy (Theocracy: God as King) is the best form of Governement, and yet we uphold and promote democracy as the best form of government on earth.  The reasoning being, I assume, that monarchy only works if the leader is godly or God himself.  So while we're here we settle for imperfect democracy.  But how is it that on earth we have prisons and punishment and in the afterlife this will continue (hell), only instead of the mercy of death, there will be eternal suffering?!?  It is better to suffer by the hand of man than by the hand of God, since at least man will allow you to die.  And man will allow you to get parole.  And man might even help you rehabilitate.  Is it really possible that man is more merciful than God, our loving creator??

Q: as a parent, isn't the point of punishment to correct your child's behaviour? To improve their morals, ethics, character?  To help them become a better person?  To grow up?  Punitive justice is ultimately pointless, and a parent who simply punishes for the sake of punishing or being "right" would be seen as cold or cruel in light of any possibility of establishing Restorative Justice and restoring things to the way they were or to an even better state.  What is the point of eternal punishment?  And I realize we're talking about spiritual realities that possibly/likely can transcend rationality, but I still have to ask, how can pain be forever?  Wouldn't the source of pain have to keep changing (otherwise you get used to it and it stops hurting)?  Doesnt' this become more of a tormenting and torture?  Even our human form of justice doesn't allow for this as good.  How can God's justice inlclude it.

Q: And how good/enjoyable can "heaven" be if an eternal hell exists all along as well?  Do we simply forget our experience and friends/family on earth?

Mystic Groove

A "peak experience" is when a person experiences himself (or herself) being rather than becoming.  The individual's ego vanishes and one is a feeling of perfection in and around.

In kyaking, this state is called "the Flow."  I have experienced it directly with pen and ink and paint.  Occassionally while skateboarding and even more often while hiking and climbing.  There is something about the great outdoors that smoothes the shift away from being self-preoccupied to simply being.  But even more than in nature, the most beautiful peak experiences are shared with friends--where the joy and play of conversation, a dance really, takes you to a different state.  You really do experience yourself being rather than becoming.  The interesting paradox is that you virtually forget about yourself and there is simply "us."

Step into the Gap

Stepping in the Gap that is "I"




There is a _vast_





gulf



between how we perceive ourselves

and









how others perceive us.

Discovering this gap is tremendously unsettling at first,

You may well feel disillusioned,

but this breaking of the illusion,

this dis-illusionment,

is

ultimately liberating.



The problem isn't that there is some absolute and

fundamental "you" that can be pinned down

where you confidently say

"aha, _this_ is who I am!"



No, the challenge lies in knowing yourself,

to appreciate this inter-subjective

interconnected world and dynamic reality we live in,

to appreciate a little more how you're perceived,

and to consciously choose the size of the "gap" that is



tolerable.



Because the fact is, we easily decieve ourselves,

and there is a social and cultural "I" as much as there is

an inner, personal experience of "I."

Both are equally important

and more imporantly,

equally real,

sometimes overlapping

but never

exactly

the same.



So don't mind the gap.



Step into the reality of  your own personal

Grand


Canyon.
~ John

Can Jesus relate to our experience of Depression?

Ever since I found out Rick would be speaking on faith and depression I’ve been wondering: can Jesus relate to our experience of depression? Or maybe the question should be, how does Jesus relate to it? Not so much merely getting the “blues,” but the needing medication kind of imbalance. The Bible speaks of him being able to relate to our weaknesses in every way–that he was fully human–and yet that he also never sinned in those states. Did Jesus have a “perfect” body that never betrayed him with a worrisome heart murmor or slighltly off brain chemistry? Something tells me he experienced achne like the rest of us. But our emotions are essentially directly correlated to chemical changes in the body, so how far did his chemistry swing? I fully appreciate Rick’s anger toward the preacher who invited repentance from Depression, but I also wonder: our sin, our “missing the mark,” seems so intimately tied up with who we are and how we feel and so sometimes I don’t merely want a God who can free me from my unloving behaviour or taint, I sometimes just feel I need Jesus to be able to understand my darker side too. Is this merely a mystery, or can is it possible to tease out the complexity of this question in a satisfying dialouge?