Boxes for God

[rug]

[edhopper]

1. That is good

as you expand your thinking, you find that there is nothing really there.


Yes, I am just taking the piss.

[rug]

2. Nothing that you can confine.

Or are you saying that there is nothing really there in your thinking?

[cbayer]

3. I have tried, but I am just not getting this.

Could you help me out here and give me your interpretation.

[rug]

4. As humans try to describe God, perforce lines and definitinions (literally drawing lines) happen.

Hence, early descriptions of God assign jealousy, anger, rage and a whole host of human attributes to God. these are the boxes we attempt to put God in.

As human understanding develops, the lines become fewer, the boxes larger.

In the end, we realize that, if there is a God, it cannot be confined to those boxes and lines we have drawn. Buddhism I suspect came to this realization much earlier.

[cbayer]

5. I like that.

I watched a documentary last night I think you might like.

It's called Raw Faith.

[rug]

6. I'll have to look for that.

BTW, that cartoon is is David Hayward. He has a blog on Patheos.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nakedpastor/2013/06/the-progressive-development-of-my-boxes-for-god/

[cbayer]

8. Thanks. Was not familair with him, but I like his take.

I also liked this response to his 'toon.

There are three recurring reasons why so many people are leaving the IC [institutional church]:
1. Dogmatic absolutism
2. Self-righteous judgmentalism
3. Sectarian triumphalism

[okasha]

7. Buddhists and pan(en)theists

in general would subscribe to this, I think. Eriugena certainly would have.