Chewing on the Lessons Part Two

Have we settled the first point? The unconditional love, etc.? Probably not. You could argue that it is unconditional because of the cross - but that still sounds like the cross itself is a condition. So that gets me to wondering how and why we have gotten so afraid of God that we want a go-between to approach God on our behalf. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I do not feel the need of a go-between, and I am not certain we need one. If we are intended to have an intimate relationship with God, one on one, what would the go-between do? Is Jesus the Wayshower? Of course. Is Jesus the Example? Certainly. To me, anyway, he is. Is Jesus the Son of God? God Himself? Does it matter? One way or the other, he showed God to us, and if we are already loved unconditionally, is it necessary for us to be "redeemed?"

And that, believe it or not, brings me to the second point.

The other basic fact I have been chewing on is that God, the Source of All Things, the Universe, even (if you don't mind getting ultramodern here) the Particle Field - whatever that Being is that we call God - is totally and absolutely above and beyond all our ideas, concepts, and theologies about Him.

God is whatever God is, and nothing we believe about God can even approach the reality of God. Because I want my personal beliefs to be authentic to me, I have had to question all that I have been taught about God before my Encounter that night.

Let me put it this way. I am playing a keyboard piece by Mr. John Doe, who wrote this music in 1776. I am working from an edition made by some poor scholar who compared every version of this music, note by note, to determine which are Mr. Doe's original notes and which are mistakes. (This kind of edition has ways to tell you which is which.) If the editor could not decide, in the second measure of the composition, what one specific note should be, he has to provide his own guess plus the other choices. If I think one of the alternative choices makes sense, I have the right to play it that way. I don't have to accept the editor's choice.

I come to the nature of God, God's love for us, etc., with this attitude: If I am convinced something is of God (the "composer"), I honor it to the best of my ability. If I believe it is most likely to have originated with mankind (the "editor"), I feel no obligation whatsoever to honor it. I can choose to do so if it makes sense to me.

And to me it seems that all our theologies, creeds, doctrines, dogmas, and so on are simply mankind's own ideas about God. Our own guesses. Our own opinions. I don't believe they have come to us from God at all.

The conclusion this led me to is: We are free to believe what makes sense to us about God, but it is ours, not God's. Why else can we have so many religions? So many branches within one religion? In Christianity, even, so many branches within a single denomination? Is it not because we all develop our own ideas about God? If all this came from God, wouldn't it be more consistent and less varied?

And the conclusion that led me to is: Whatever we believe about God doesn't touch God. All our wrangling and feuding and wars over our beliefs are a complete waste of time, energy, and all too frequently our lives.

It would be comical, if it weren't such a tragic waste.