A god as an ideal, not an actual being?

Our conceptions of God, no matter how much we protest that God is ineffable, are often conceived as having qualities understood in human terms. A "loving" god...what does "love" mean when its paired with the sort of holiness considered appropriate for a god? Isn't to be holy the same thing as being the ultimate other? Love seems to me to be the very opposite of holy, because it approaches the unconditioned knowing of another. Holiness really denies that possibility, when you think about it.

So what does it mean to understand God as an ultimate with human qualities such as love? I would like to offer one possibility: it is the qualities that matter, not the being. Elevating the qualities we think a god would have means that we ourselves are aspiring to those qualities, generally being positive ones. Or put in another way: If you substitute "the fulfillment of the finest qualities possible" for "god" in the sentence "I believe in God and I follow his will", what you end up with is: "I believe in the fulfillment of the finest qualities possible, and I attempt to live my life according to them". This is a god understood as an expression of hope in the improvement of human nature. This idea does not include the description "holy", because that would estrange us from part of ourselves, implying that there was something alien in us.

Of course, in the popular culture, a god has quite another meaning, and so talking about a god in these terms will confuse people. If you say "I believe in God", most people would think you meant something quite different that what I have described. What I have offered is a humanistic and materialistic idea that could be filed under the name of "god", if one were so inclined.

Thoughts? Has anyone else considered this possibility? Is there any use in this idea, when the vast majority would just not understand? I doubt that there is, but I wanted to explore it nonetheless. Thank you for your attention.

"Elevating the qualities we think a god would have means that we ourselves are aspiring to those qualities, generally being positive ones." God here is a projection of our best and, in some cases, worst qualities. People who have been seriously victimized often have trouble imagining a loving god and who can blame them. The qualities that I think you're referencing are of a high order, beyond what we can reach here - true tolerance, acceptance, a state of real peace even in action...

Harold Bloom wrote about religion as a critic, showing appreciation for different religious factions, not disrespect. He revealed his own notion of god in that process. It was an alignment between us at random moments with the perfection in the universe where we were actually part of it. It's in this moment the process of seeking starts. We want to control the process. In the Gospel of Thomas, which has an introduction by Bloom (amazing), this appears:


Jesus said: The seeker should not stop until he
finds. When he does find he will be disturbed. After
having been disturbed, he will be astonished. Then he
will reign over everything.

http://tinyurl.com/2cj2dx

It doesn't get much better, imho, this description of seeking.

Mine is in a book called

Beyond Belief - the secret gospel of Thomas
By Elaine Pagels ISBN 0-375-70316-0

She offers a translation thats starts:



And so it goes on.

I add it because:
a) it's a VERY good book, mostly about an early Bishop called Irenaeus.
b) because I think the missing first line is important, and
c) because I don't know about Bloom, but the important point in all this in often "interpretation".

Back to point b). There were two Judas' - one Iscariot and the other a Twin. The Aramaic word for twin became translated in to Greek as Thomas. So to say Thomas the twin is really to say "twin" the twin. Shows how much was already lost by the time it was written in Greek. Written by Thomas! His name was JUDAS, but because there were two Judases it just caused too many problems. There is a strong church of Thomas Christians in the East somewhere, I think in India, and the impression I get is that they spend a lot of their time saying "No, a different Judas"!

TRYPHO

Pagels did some excellent work on the Gnostics but recently converted back to traditional mainstream religion. I know, I bought her latest book thinking it would be an extension of previousl work on gnosis. Wrong. Very interesting, guess she got a little too far out front for comfort.

That's great "no, a different Judas." But how could the resurection take place with out Judas? I've always wondered that. His actions are the author of all that.

God resembles man in deeds or any other way. People that tell others how to live because of the Bible, the Koran or any etc. are backward and unfair.

I was taught that the important part is to consider this possibility and the way to achieve kadusha (holiness) is to have as a goal the "fulfillment of the finest qualities possible". The Talmud attributes God as saying (and I paraphrase), "I don't mind if my children abandon me as long as they follow my mitzvot. Through good deeds they will eventually find me." I have always interpreted this as the Talmud saying that our actions matter most, not the being and by performing the deeds we perhaps might get a better understanding of what God really is.

The philosophy in which I was taught tells me that we humans are born with yetzer harah (inclination to do bad) and yetzer hatov (inclination to do good) and we have the capability to choose which path we follow. We can follow the path of the holy one by exercising our yetzer hatov, therefore making ourselves holy. Or we can choose to follow a different path.

We Jews have torah to guide us through that path to holiness. Other people have their own guide. An atheist will not call it holiness because of the religious implications but he/she will perform good deeds that "sets him/her apart" from most of other humans by not being complacent to injustice and human suffering. The same goes for other religious groups that are active in helping others.

That's my 2 cents... :-)

Christ was definitely a myth and the concept of one God was hooey, I would still be a very spiritual person.

I think the concept of God is Love suffices for me. I KNOW there is love; I experience it. And love has led me to do the finest things of my life, so I know it can be very positive. I know my parents are dead in body, but I know they live in me, in my dreams, my dna, my upbringing, my personality, and in my love.

I will even go so far as to say that I can also accept the possibility that Jesus as I know Him, is a blending, if you will, of all the various stories about Him, and that this complex development of these stories has led to a rule of life that if followed carefully, leads to enlightenment. Perhaps this was the plan of a superior intelligence. Perhaps it was random. I prefer to believe He existed as a man and the stories are true, but in many ways it doesn't matter to me. I see the value of Christ in my life.