Is God Indifferent, or Without Needs?

Tj O'R In my opinion, the "God Who Is" does not need anything. People, on the other hand, are quite needy. I think worship of Truth/God is a major need we have individually & collectively so that we may live more abundantly (not God's need). Knowledge of the "God Who Is" can fill those holes along a continuum of growth, again both individually and collectively. Ego is an obstacle that lessens as real Truth is embraced. The gods who ain't, even though such gods are proclaimed and worshiped by many, aren't much help. Quite the opposite, but methinks them to be, born of egocentricity as well. My knowledge of the "God Who Is" is slight at best. However, I consider endeavoring to kill ego, with knowledge God makes available in my life, an act of true worship. The less ego in it, the truer the worship is. I have a long way to go, as do we all, again both individually & collectively. But I believe the joy to be found, can only be found on that journey. Reply 16hEdited Mark Rego Monteiro Tj O'R There are reasons to value spiritual masters, and saying the "God Who Is" doesn´t want anything is its own egotistical act. It ignores real world needs, and more fundamentally the standard shown in teachings like "shine your light in front of others with good deeds to honor God" Matt 5 addresses the need for what FDR et al´s Social Gospel values proposed and negotiated with the world in UN human rights, and now sustainability. Scholar H Smith did great work presenting Jewish culture among all the religions, and noted that Elijah was a pioneering prophet for social justice. American right wing culture and secular materialism, along with the scientific and economic kinds that contaminate and anesthetize many progressives, sounds like the typical source of that disconnect. I found my way trying to make the world decent, with spiritual practice just refreshment, until I realized it is also empowerment. Tj O'R Mark Rego Monteiro You are projecting and presuming I said things that I did not intend to say. Where did I say not to shine your light? In my opinion a gospel that lacks a social aspect is faith without works. I tried to imply that when I said collectively. Seeking Truth and getting there will get you to a point where you don't define "considering others as important as yourself" as love, so much as just accepting the reality. Gaining that perspective even on a continuum has social significance (fruit). Some you mentioned did positive things, some the opposite. All I am saying is those who did well considered others more closely important as themselves, and those who do evil, do so from a more egocentric angle. I am sorry that my communication was so clumsy you thought I said what I did not. I say the "God Who Is" because any other description based upon my opinion would fall far short of the "God Who Is". There is a book called "The God Who Is There" by Francis Schaeffer. I read it many times when I was younger and it helped me think through some things. Even the title helped me. I have adopted the term. Tj O'R I´m sorry if my comment made you feel the need to apologize for your communication. My intent is to get to loving understanding, and in the complexity of materialistic modernized secular Christian Western society, that´s no small matter. I´m not familiar with Schaeffer, but recognize the value of identifying God´s reality beyond limited labels. I liked scholar H Smith´s description of the Chinese Tao back then, as a "creative continuum that is always accessible." And Unitarian Universalism for their acknowledgment and support of spiritual paths. I began back in high school with certainly want to acknowledge your interest in "those who consider others more closely important as themselves." Still, I might offer the benefits of my own rigorous dedication to combining knowledge with spirituality, that by "egocentrism," you would better say "egotism." My efforts have been systematic, with a college degree in Bio Anthro followed by such work as social services witth substtance abusers and their kids. Self-caring loving self-talk and nurture makes egocentrism a healthy component of healthy other care and empowerment. Misguided codependency and smothering and worse are the widespread consequences of failing to empower people with mental health and community development skills. Egocentrism requires full and healthy self-care for relating to others and the transpersonal and transcendental Higher Power and entities, while egotism reflects abused and neglected power and control maneuvering by those who confuse self-promotion and often financial power and control of others with self-care and mutually beneficial empowerment of others. Louise Hay trained in Religious Science and developed self-care and spiritual loving self-talk like, "I am always divinely guided and protected" in her book You Can Heal Your Life. I later engaged with Christian Science of Mary Baker Eddy, and learned that Eddy´s church is the original trunk and wellspring of branches and streams like Religious Science and Hay. Meanwhile, your comment is based around your statement that "God that is" "DOESN´T NEED ANYTHING." That was my focus. You share your belief that only people have needs. Did you deny Jesus about "shining your light ... to honor God."? Well, I´m glad you value my mentioning it, first of all. Then, I invite you to consider the implications of Jesus´ phrase, and his larger meaning all together. It leads me to ask, what is the significance of that in assessing God´s needs in relation to people and their needs? Jesus identified not, say for example, as the guy Jefferson could purge miracles from in his Deist rationalist Christianity so that he could be considered Jefferson´s "greatest moral teacher of all time." That´s "swell" and awfully nice of Jefferson, but it isn´t actually empirically accurate. Jesus did leave a legacy that was not randomly achieving spectacular things by Jefferson´s day, "but thanks for the title of 'greatest moral teacher,'" by Jefferson. My dwelling on that historical case example helps emphasize my point. Many Christians have become caught up in what has been called the "Cartesian mind-body split" and its larger expression in mechanistic "science", and widespread metaphysical naturalism, all part of ideological materialism. The right wing evangelicals are their own "Body-snatched" agents of profiteering businesspeople, ie economic materialists waving a flag of largely unChristian fundamentalism. Progressives have their own hooks in failing to redirect their focus to grassroots socially responsible community and co-op social economics and activism. Which would lead around examples like food co-op markets, credit unions, green power co-ops, Ralph Nader and Fannie Lou Hamer plus Social Europe. Clarifying those examples helps clear the smokey air of Who Needs What. People certainly have needs. Yet, what is the meaning of God? We are swimming in some spectacular legacy, with Jefferson, Science, the Enlightenment all grounded on Universities developed from monastic schools and the monk T Aquinas´ spectacular insights that treated God through Jesus as empirical in nature, the Eternal Creator who created a finite Universe. See Aquinas´ adjustments to the "infinite" and First Cause as 5 ways, including motion back to a Prime Mover. And yet, unlike Aristotle´s Unmoved Mover, through Jesus, his heritage and legacy, and that of Aquinas, is all part of a God reflected in His/Her Son of Man who was executed and Resurrected after an amazing healing and teaching plus ministry. Jesus, of course, has his heritage that goes back to Abraham and Moses. Their spiritual-religious experience expresses a God who reached out to human beings first through one group. The history of the prophets goes far beyond anachronistic, ahistorical stereotypes about OT brutality that project modern secularized Christian UN human rights standards. The prophets showed how God´s love was expressed in more and more loving clarity. Until the "sand in the oyster" that made the pearl of Jesus, and the growth of Jesus´ loving integrity potential in his legacy to Aquinas at the U of Paris and beyond to Jefferson et al, Quaker-Friend et al social movements for abolition etc, then FDR et al´s UN human rights negotiated with the world at the end of WWII and Gandhi´s own spectacular efforts marking the new era of independence from colonialism and shift to globalized educational Civil Society culture embodying the highest integrity potential. So, like you draw from Schaeffer with the term, "God that is," I have been fascinated by Mary B Eddy´s Christian Science approach of Mother/Father God that is Divine Mind, Love, etc, in which perceiving God´s transcendental reality and us in God´s image as reflections of spiritual Divine reality, are blessed and empowered as Jesus was. As I survey a range of figures like Gandhi, Einstein, FD Roosevelt and Eleanor, Carl Jung et al, Rev MLK, and Fannie Lou Hamer, I note their range of spiritual strengths and insights and the implications for the meaning of Jesus as the heritage of a re-spiritualized interfaith Christianity in the spirit of interfaith Gandhi and FDR´s UN human rights. And George Harrison of the Beatles, no less, and more. God isn´t just indifferent, is what I´m observing and inferring. Jesus´ legacy in University culture has also lead to the unearthing and illuminating of the Buddha and his own life and legacy as a powerful complement to Jesus´ loving integrity standard of spiritual practice. Hinduism itself had guru spiritual-religious practitioners who had brilliant insights into Brahma the Creator god among gods, with atman the divine spark in humans. Those Hindu practitioners expressed doubts about the purpose of Brahma´s creation, and Brahma´s own awareness. Buddha appeared in a rich religious cultural environment, with its castes. He grasped the Four Noble Truths, the empirical reality of perceptive mind and the sense-perceived world, their spiritual quality, and their origin in a Spirit expressed as a Law guiding people to enlightenment, the dharmakaya. Jesus gives us a special insight into the meaning of our modern University-based, UN human rights globalized culture with structured pluralism. Gandhi´s and FDR´s own desires to promote moral well-being were both part of Jesus´ legacy community. "Egocentrism" involves the healthy use of self and perceiving "enlightened self-interest" to use a Western phrase. Buddhist interdependence. Gandhi and FDR demonstrate how knowledge, practice, and love act in combination. Einstein as primarily a scientist recognized Jesus´ vitality as a historical figure, and Gandhi´s incredible spiritual accomplishment, but limited his personal view of an impersonal God to his rebel, trans-Jewish forebear Spinoza. Rev MLK, meanwhile, commented on personalism and a personal God. not the Tao that is". Good luck on your journey. I don't know how to respond to this except to say that "Egocentric" is typically defined as: "thinking only of oneself, without regard for the feelings or desires of others; self-centered". I think this is common but in no wise "healthy" and something to be overcome by us all, individually & collectively. I don't think it can be done completely by beings such as us, but progress can be and is made along a continuum. Some folks more than others. In your reference to Lao Tsu, I will say: "The Tao that can be defined is not the Tao that is". Good luck on your journey.\ Mark Rego Monteiro Tj O'Rourke As I mentioned the term "egotistical", and what are in fact significant mental health issues of self-care, the term "egocentric" is simply misused if confused with the former. Your own insistence on ignoring of my point, is itself noteworthy, and raises the issue of self-hatred, and other forms of self-abuse and self-neglect. You are glorifying your use of one use of a problematic popular usage and ignoring my indication as someone who has actually looked in detail at the issue. Is that your consideration of others? It indicates a disregard of others. You think you can "overcome" your own basic needs for love, usually from childhood? John Bradshaw´s Healing the Shame and Homecoming kinds of books provided rich insights to "overcome" such poorly informed attitudes. But, he did his homework. As for your using the Taoist phrase to emphasize "words are insufficient" perpetuates your own egotism in the face of even acknowledging the value of considering "healthy" insights in someone else´s scholarly suggestions. You are committed to a popularized notion that denies your own, and other´s self appropriate caring treatment, for self and others. My job is to communicate. That same Taoist verse continues and notes that the Tao is the mother of the 10,000 things, as much as the Source of being. All such assertions are very much powerful forms of definition using words. The expression you cited doesn´t negate definition, as you try to insist. It clarifies the distinction between words and transcendental reality, with even the final words of "Mystery in Mystery...." being defining affirmations in words of something real. There are other verses that refer to love, but in Buddhism, he Buddha´s emphasis of the value of lovingkindness is often a bit clearer. Yet, neither tradition approaches the clarity of Jesus´ healing, making Jesus a necessary point of return to grasp the value of those I mentioned and more in combination, with Fannie Lou Hamer staying in the realm of grassroots help of Rev MLK´s Montgomery boycott, as Hamer started a Farm Co-op. Her health, however, could have benefited from Alice Miller´s kind of psychological understanding, or Black psyychology´s F Sumner, or Zora Neale Hurston´s caring art and anthropological education. Buddha also emphasized the supreme value of seeking the truth, as did Jesus.