God in our Image?

[Mendalla]

That doesn't, however, take into account conversion experiences, in which people have come to faith in God and that faith in that God has resulted in a significant change in their moral outlook and values. So they haven't simply created a God who agrees with them; they have had their values re-oriented through some sort of experience.

Is that so? Has there been a good psychological study to show that there really was a change and not just something they had been ignoring or repressing coming to the fore? It is still change and possibly one for the better, but it wouldn't really be the 180 degree flip we are sometimes led to believe happens in conversion experiences.

Take me as an example. If I suddenly spouted "Jesus is Lord, praise be to Jesus" you would only have to look at the fact that I grew up Christian and took a lot of my values from that upbringing to suggest it isn't really that big a deal. Chansen doing so, OTOH, might be a bigger deal though perhaps there is already a seed there that we just don't see in our interactions with him.

So not questioning that there is a change, just that it really represents something new rather than something already there coming out.

I could also suggest that it is not always a change for better, as converts are sometimes among the most militant among the faithful. Witness how many Western Al Qaeda and Caliphate followers are converts. Not saying most converts are like that, but it is a sign that conversion isn't automatically the blessing some portray it as.

 

[Waterfall]

Don't you wonder why God's values and morality seem to be the same as the person espousing them? Doesn't that explain why "God's values" seem to be very different, depending on who you are talking too?

I'm a follower, but I have enough doubt to wonder if I still would be, if it could be proved (which it can't) that God categorically was against, say, same sex marriage?

If you follow God how could you not be influenced? We are taught how to discern false witness.

The last line is hypothetical...which you agree with by saying,"which it can't".

 

[revjohn]

That doesn't, however, take into account conversion experiences, in which people have come to faith in God and that faith in that God has resulted in a significant change in their moral outlook and values

Indeed.

Particularly where the conversion (as a whole and not simply the process) is quite dramatic. Mind you, such conversion is not "typical" of Christian experience. More common is the "awakening" where Christians have some form of epiphany and find themselves transformed as a result.

Neither of these phenomenon seem likely if we are constructing God to suit our purposes.

Possibly, if we find God changing as a result of our conversion/awakening it could be argued that we project a change in the nature or character of God commensurate with the internal change we have gone through. That being the case conversion/awakening should be less jarring as far as experience goes since it is literally the dog that wags the tail and not a tail being wagged.

At any rate there is enough to the conversion/awakening experience that suggests Durkheim is not sufficiently descriptive enough with some definitions.

 

[Seeler]

Which did God create - Adam and Eve, or Adam and Steve?

That has nothing to do with Pilgrim''s question or the OP.

 

[Jaebius]

If God did not create Steve then who is Steve's Creator?

Ah, but I never said that God did not create Steve.

 

[Jaebius]

Mind you, such conversion is not "typical" of Christian experience. More common is the "awakening" where Christians have some form of epiphany and find themselves transformed as a result.

Really. And the stats for that come from...? In my experience, most Christians have had a conversion experience.

 

[revjohn]

Is that so? Has there been a good psychological study to show that there really was a change and not just something they had been ignoring or repressing coming to the fore?

I'm not even aware that there has been a bad psychological study of the effects of conversion/awakening experiences.

I suspect that the awakening phenomenon (Christians having an epiphany which deepend their Christian walk) could be argued as slipping the bounds of some repressive force. Conversion, at least as I percieve revsdd using it, would not be anything of the kind.

It is still change and possibly one for the better, but it wouldn't really be the 180 degree flip we are sometimes led to believe happens in conversion experiences.

Quite right. The awakening phenomenon is more of an acceleration than a change of direction. In light of Durkheim's assertion the questions would be whether the acceleration is internally kickstarted or externally driven.

Take me as an example. If I suddenly spouted "Jesus is Lord, praise be to Jesus" you would only have to look at the fact that I grew up Christian and took a lot of my values from that upbringing to suggest it isn't really that big a deal. Chansen doing so, OTOH, might be a bigger deal though perhaps there is already a seed there that we just don't see in our interactions with him.

While true that your suddenly demonstrating such behaviour can be rationalized by pointing out that it was part of your earlier spiritual formation it doesn't so simply explain how you go from not behaving in that way on one day and suddenly behaving that way the next. What events transpire that lead to such a marked change in your behaviour? Not likely that you suddenly remembered you were supposed to be a Christian and as such you were supposed to be acting in this fashion since, it should be said, not all Christians engage in such theatrics.

Presuming chansen was genuinely engaging in the same behaviour rather than mocking it we would still be curious to know what it was that has provoked such a change in him. In that regard the same questions put to you would be put to chansen and observers would be left with two testimonies to compare and contrast.

So not questioning that there is a change, just that it really represents something new rather than something already there coming out.

There is, I believe, something demonstrably new even if it is not demonstrably dramatic. I am the same person awake or asleep admittedly my interaction with my environment is markedly different. Asleep I demonstrate no interest in things around me. Awake, I am easily distracted by the smallest of things. Of course such change, happening regularly, over a lifetime fails to become remarkable. Something has changed in me and my response to my environment and stimuli within it is very different. The question would be why?

I can testify that I never had a conversion experience. I have always been raised in a Christian environment. I can testify to an awakening which did correspond in a decidedly new trajectory in my life. Since it was not observed to happen in a labratory environment there is probably no way that we can repeat that experience (at least in me as a test subject) and as a result there is no compelling way that I can present that I am different now from who I was then (beyond the fact that people mature with experience and I am not exactly the same person I was this time last year).

Revsdd has shared some of his testimony which began in Atheism and ends up in Christianity. None of that happened in a labratory environment so we all rely on his testimony that it did happen and pick his brains for why he thinks it happened. Are we just going to trust his self-reporting or must we reject all of it out of hand?

I could also suggest that it is not always a change for better, as converts are sometimes among the most militant among the faithful. Witness how many Western Al Qaeda and Caliphate followers are converts. Not saying most converts are like that, but it is a sign that conversion isn't automatically the blessing some portray it as.

With respect to the conversation in the thread thus far I don't think any have made a case that conversion must always be to the better. What appears to be at the heart of introducing the idea of conversion is how Durkheim's definition of God as internally constructed device addresses conversion where one's understanding of God may be radically reworked.

 

[chansen]

Don't you wonder why God's values and morality seem to be the same as the person espousing them? Doesn't that explain why "God's values" seem to be very different, depending on who you are talking too?

I think one of the advantages Christianity has over some other religions is the vast number of different beliefs and moral positions it supports. The evidence for this is the thousands of different Christian denominations and the schisms that are still being threatened. To this day, if you don't agree with the position of your church, you can just find another. This is a feature of Christianity that churches like the UCCan need to expoit, because more intolerant churches should be vulnerable in times of greater awareness and acceptance of other people and other ways of living your life in consensual, loving bonds that hurt no one.

I'm a follower, but I have enough doubt to wonder if I still would be, if it could be proved (which it can't) that God categorically was against, say, same sex marriage?

If God could be proved to be against same sex marriage, that first means God has been shown to exist, after which being an atheist really isn't a reasonable option. What you're suggesting is that you might be convinced to be against this God who has the power to raise mountains and uses this power to watch people have consensual sex. Yes, this Peeping Tom God is creepy, but I don't think it's worth worrying about while it's just based on faith.

 

[revjohn]

Ah, but I never said that God did not create Steve.

Ah, but you did posit the either/or option of Adam and Eve "or" Adam and Steve.

The reality is that God created Adam and Eve and Steve which means that the either/or option is false and a both/and option is true.

Traditionally the question you repeat was seen as a convincing proof that individuals chose to be Gay and were not created that way. It fails in that simply because it forces individuals to argue that God did not create Adam and Steve.

Traditionally it is also a question frequently linked to all kinds of anti-homosexual rhetoric. If you don't want to get tarred with that brush you probably want to not play with it.

 

[revjohn]

Really. And the stats for that come from...? In my experience, most Christians have had a conversion experience.

You require stats from me and then expect to trump it with personal anecdote?

Nice level playing field you present.

 

[Mendalla]

Really. And the stats for that come from...? In my experience, most Christians have had a conversion experience.

Which may relate to the Christian circles you move in. I suspect that if you go into RC churches or many mainstream Protestant churches like the UCCan, the majority are "career Christians" who grew up in the church, perhaps drifting out and back, perhaps having some epiphany or other about their faith along the way. Then you have some with "epiphanies" or "conversions" (like @revsdd). In evangelical churches, you are probably likely to have a higher percentage of conversions because there is a stronger focus on that aspect of the faith. At least that has been my observation over the years.

UU congregations, interestingly, tend to be heavy on "converts"; people like me who have left Christianity for one reason or another. Some have had "conversion experiences" that led them away from Christianity, some left over conflicts with their church (e.g. LGBTQ folks leaving conservative or evangelical churches), some just "lost their faith". I'd be the last. These people don't always remain UU, but often use us as a waystation before landing in some other tradition (e.g. the middle group may end up back in Christianity, just in a more accepting denomination).

 

[Jaebius]

Ah, but you did posit the either/or option of Adam and Eve "or" Adam and Steve.

Yes, that's correct, which is really quite a different thing than asking whether God in time created Steve or not.

The reality is that God created Adam and Eve and Steve which means that the either/or option is false and a both/and option is true.

Agreed that God created Adam, Eve, and Steve. However, the question remains - which did God create as the paradigm of marriage - the Adam and Eve coupling or the Adam and Steve.

 

[Jaebius]

You require stats from me and then expect to trump it with personal anecdote?

Nice level playing field you present.

No attempt at "trumping" was intended. Clintoning either . Do you have the stats or not.

 

[Waterfall]

@PilgrimsProgress, I am not invisible, I am not all powerful, I probably will not be known to more than those in my immediate circle. I don't perform miracles or even suggest I could raise the dead, It is also VERY, VERY hard to follow God.....so tell me again how I've created a God to be like me.?

 

[revjohn]

Agreed that God created Adam, Eve, and Steve. However, the question remains - which did God create as the paradigm of marriage - the Adam and Eve coupling or the Adam and Steve.

So now that you have changed the goal posts on who God created mind sharing how that relates to the thread?

You are aware that using the paradigm of Adam and Eve also leads to errors which have been supported by Christians through the years. Were Adam and eve same or mixed race? Why is that normative or not? Sure they were both human so humans should only marry other humans. Funny how it took Christians and the Jews before them so many years to solve that riddle don't you think? I mean where do we read in Genesis that God created whites. blacks, browns, reds, yellow, olives or other?

 

[Mendalla]

@PilgrimsProgress, I am not invisible, I am not all powerful, I probably will not be known to more than those in my immediate circle. I don't perform miracles or even suggest I could raise the dead, It is also VERY, VERY hard to follow God.....so tell me again how I've created a God to be like me.?

That's not what she's referring to, though. That's more about having a God who fulfills our idea about what a "God" should be. She's talking about a God who is like us in that many of us tend to follow a God who shares and validates our prejudices and moral values rather than one who challenges them and upsets our apple cart in some way.

 

[Waterfall]

That's not what she's referring to, though. That's more about having a God who fulfills our idea about what a "God" should be. She's talking about a God who is like us in that many of us tend to follow a God who shares and validates our prejudices and moral values rather than one who challenges them and upsets our apple cart in some way.

Included that with stating He is VERY VERY hard to follow......most people wouldn't choose what goes against their grain or prejudice.

What you are describing is culture and the influence of people IMO, not God.

 

[revjohn]

No attempt at "trumping" was intended. Clintoning either . Do you have the stats or not.

Nope. No stats.

I do define the terms at play. Conversion, from one to another. Awakening, more of the same.

Most of that comes from reviewing research presented over the years by Dr. Reg Bibby out of the University of Lethbridge who notes that Congregational growth rarely comes as a result of conversion and is more a result of recycling the saints.

So, Bibby doesn't think of Conversion as something like Roman Catholic to Anglican or Lutheran to Baptist. That is, his his terms, recycling of the saints.

Bibby would think of Conversion as something like Jew to Christian or Athiest to Islam.

Bibby's numbers indicate that there is much recycling among Christians in Canada and less conversion from one faith to another.

Awakening is a term I have borrowed from other Christian scholars who note that Christian growth can be seen and that for the most part it resembles a similar transition from slumbering individual to awake individual. They are fundamentally the same person, believing the same things but their activity has changed.

Bibby's research is available on the internet search it out.

 

[Mendalla]

What you are describing is culture and the influence of people IMO, not God.

Right, but that's PP's point. A lot of things we attribute to "God" are us projecting our own culture and influence on to God to validate it.

 

[Waterfall]

Right, but that's PP's point. A lot of things we attribute to "God" are us projecting our own culture and influence on to God to validate it.

Not to validate God, but to justify going off the narrow path.

 

[Mendalla]

Not to validate God, but to justify going off the narrow path.

Never said they were validating God. I said they were using God to validate themselves. Which I think is the point you were trying to make but your wording is a bit off from what I was saying.