Gene Robinson says he will invoke GOOMU.

[saltpoint]

Whom he described using full speech and not my acronym --

"the god of our many understandings."

This from an NPR interview on Tuesday of this week.

[Occam Bandage]

1. That is appropriate and heartening. nt

[saltpoint]

2. Strongly agree.

Hi, Occam Bandage.

[ananda]

3. GOOMU

Sounds like a blessed cow. ;-))

[saltpoint]

4. : )

[charlie]

5. I'd rather he invoked the God of Incontinence

on that purpose driven asshole. Warren blowing like Krakatoa on global TV would catapult millions of us into paroxysms of "understanding."

[saltpoint]

8. charlie, hello. No fan of Warren myself, I think I've bored a lot of folks

offering up the idea that Warren is actually worse than we think he is.

Gene Robinson likely knows a lot more about Judeo-Christianity than Warren. That's only a guess, becaause I don't really know. But I have a sense that Warren is more of a marketer than a scholar. He's a "fame-driven" Christian. Robinson has done the real homework and has the far clearer vision.

I don't bray too loudly about this Warren/Robinson split because I'm not even Christian. But I thought Robinson's interview on NPR was a winner.

Hope all's well your way.

[cosmik debris]

6. Oh great, now we have yet another god to deal with.

How many more gods are going to show up demanding equal treatment?

[saltpoint]

9. It's true. Things can get crowded in a hurry.

I propose we ask the Republican minority in the Congress to set up more chairs.

And make more sandwiches.

[dmallind]

7. If there are many understandings then is there a god at all?

If there are many conflicting and disparate views of God then there are a limited number of possibilities:

1) God is undefinable and ineffable and thus irrelevant since we can have no clue what it really is or does or wants (if anything - what could a true god really want from humans?)

2) God is so multifaceted and all encompassing that any description or view of him is valid, in which case he still becomes irrelevant since there is nothing that is not true and not contingent upon God, which means he can be ignored, reviled or praised with exactly equal validity and results.

3) One and only one view of God is valid and all others that conflict or depart from this understanding become irrelevant if not downright blasphemy. The trouble is quite a lot of people are absolutely convinced that this one correct view is theirs and are willing to kill each other for it. God is then exceedingly relevant, but because he allows people to get it both right and wrong with exactly analogous arguments and proofs and "spiritual truths", remains ineffable and undefinable until the argument about which view of him is correct is resolved. This of course will be both impossible and genocidal unless he finally clears it up himself or redesigns humans to stop slaughtering each other over the question.

4) They are all making it up as they go along and it really should be the God Of Our Many Imaginings. Again, this would then be irrelevant.

The very fact that there are multiple views of God argued with exactly the same kind of premises makes him either irrelevant, or nonexistent, or very bloody dangerous indeed. Take your pick - there is no other option.

[saltpoint]

10. With respect, Robinson did cover that in the interview, so if it

seemed from my OP that he didn't, blame me and not Robinson.

[dmallind]

11. Not a blame at all - just musings of my own

You were under no burden to take on that point. Neither was Robinson really.

I wonder what he said though. My guess is he tried the all encompassing God option without of course extrapolating that to the necessary conclusion of irrelevance. I shll have to listen when I have a few minutes.

[saltpoint]

12. Hi, dmallind. I'm guessing Robinson is likely to upset the fundie nutbags by

excluding the word "Jesus" in his invocation, and I for one am thrilled when the fundie nutbags are upset. It's more fun than a game show, although not as substantive.

Warren's extreme far-right commercial mega-church Christianity is a tremendous embarrassment, one his followers evidently don't get. LOL! This is part of the fun, I guess -- it just doesn't take much at all to send these people into spasms of outrage!

And to make matters worse, Robinson is an actual scholar of their own claimed faith. An out gay Episcopal clergyman who knows their Bible a lot better than they do.

[dmallind]

14. Agreed on all points - but I still disagree with him

He's a bit like Spong in those regards, if not in theology - and certainly much to be preferred over the common-garden fundy, but even a vague non-fundy god is still a god, and there are still fundamental (pun intended) problems with the concept of a god.

[saltpoint]

29. (moved downthread)

[JerseygirlCT]

18. Only if you require absolutes

You jump from God being multifaceted and all encompassing to saying that then means irrelevance. Why? That seems to assume that a human definition is required to make God relevant. That if we can't box God up and understand the dimensions of the box, God is no longer worth contemplating. I just find that an odd and restrictive notion.

[dmallind]

19. Not really; I require a lack of ineffability

A human definition IS required to make God relevant to humans. If we cannot know even at a human level what God is and what he desires of us we must, by definition, be reduced to simply guessing, which makes any guess as good as any other. Anything we say God MUST be is only our own projection if there is no accepted human definition of God. How do we know he is benign, or even interested, or even aware of us?

Obviously for a god to be worthy of the name human understanding of that god must be incomplete, just like canine understanding of us is undoubtedly incomplete. But dogs certainly seem to understand what we are from a canine perspective. If humans cannot understand what God is and what he wants even within our own limited abilities, how then should we react to God, or do what he would wish us to?

So any definition of God that is one of those typical "he is everything in all things and all things are in him and by him" means only that we know nothing specific or relevant about him. The problem is evry time one group of humans or another gets to the specific things about him, another group, and more likely many other groups, disagree vehemently and violently.

Which takes us back to the either irrelevant or alarmingly dangerous if he exists,

[JerseygirlCT]

20. See, I'm still not getting you

Saying there's far more to know than we could grasp in it's entirety isn't saying there's nothing we can know - I think it's closer to your dog example. There are things we can know, without assuming that those things are the limits, in this case, assuming that our human limitations of understanding must therefore limit God.

So admitting that this is the way I see God doesn't limit your understanding - which I think is what Bishop Robinson is getting at. It's always going to be a very personal thing, no matter the amount of organization(s). The blind men and the elephant, you know?

[dmallind]

21. Theoretically that would make sense BUT

remember I gave multiple options, and the explanation you suggest would take us from the "vague and irrelevant" option to the "bloody dangerous" option.

If we have imperfect understanding of God (which again would be inevitable if a god exists) then we also as a species disagree in many contradictory ways about what it is that we DO understand, and are willing to kill each other to try and advance our case. If God exists and has not seen fit to either make it clear which understanding of him is closest, while by definition incomplete, and also seen fit to design humans in such a way that we can will and do slaughter each other over the argument, then you indeed have a very relevant god, but a god exactly as I described in option 3 - one about whom we have no agreed upon definition, and where disagreements about the definitions are very inimical to humanity.

Like I said in my initial conclusion - God is either irrelevant, nonexistent or bloody dangerous. There is no other choice.

[JerseygirlCT]

22. Well, sure. But is that a problem with God or a problem with us?

I suspect, given absolute answers, to everyone's satisfaction, about the nature of God, we'd still find something else to fight about, you know? I'm afraid it's likely in our nature.

But if more people take the tack of Bishop Robinson, and look for God while understanding that as fallible human beings, their view does not have to be an absolute one, and being respectful of others' search... wouldn't that be far more likely to leave things peaceable?

I'm not seeing a dangerous God per se, in your 3rd example, but a misunderstood one - after all, most of the major religions have some striking similarities when you step back enough to look at the broad strokes: treat each other well, it's good for you. So if people interpret God differently, but still claim a belief, you'd guess that they would hold to that basic idea. Except, being people, they don't!

[trotsky]

31. GOOMI it is, then!

:thumbsup:

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. An alternate name of the Global Standard Deity

If you have never read any of the Thursday Next books by Jasper Fforde, you really should. :hi:

http://www.thursdaynext.com/

[dmallind]

15. Wow - I have and have come across few others. Bless the GSD!

Now have you read the Nursery Crime books? (only two so far)

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. An excellent series

I really liked The Fourth Bear. The ongoing subplot about the Car of Dorian Gray was great, and the murderous cake (or is he a cookie?), the Gingerbread Man was nothing short of inspired genius. "Run, run, as fast as you can! You won't get away, I'm the Gingerbread Man!"

Jasper Fforde is a brilliantly funny writer.

[JerseygirlCT]

16. Well done

Reminds me a bit of a former rector, who changed the prayers in the baptism rite for my sons (two different times) because my Jewish family was in attendence. No references to Christ, all to God. A small thing perhaps, but a huge gesture to me and my family.

The more I hear and read about Bishop Robinson, the more fortunate I think NH is.

[saltpoint]

23. I have never met your rector who changed the language for the

baptism of your sons, but I have the hunch that rector was just terrific.

Great story.


:hi:

[JerseygirlCT]

24. She was. I just adored her.

And it was just another plus for me personally that she was close to my own age - I'd never had the chance to have a priest I could so easily relate to.

She got an offer to return to the parish she'd been ass't in. It's near where I grew up - and gorgeous. Right on the darn beach, for pete's sake! Couldn't blame her in the least for returning, but I still miss her.

I think her lovely personality is what moved my oldest at 8 to ask to be baptised. Lovely person.

[More Than A Feeling]

25. Is GOOMU invoked by throwing his poke-ball? nt

[saltpoint]

26. I'm lost. What is a 'poke-ball'?

[More Than A Feeling]

27. I guess it's been too long for Pokemon references, huh?

Poke-balls were what Pokemon were stored in before they came out to fight.

I was trying to suggest that "GOOMU" sounds like a Pokemon, not a deity.

[saltpoint]

28. I'm embarrassed not to have known that reference. Sorry to be such

a clod.

I know (vaguely) about Pokemon characters but don't know anything specific.

[saltpoint]

30. I think Bishop Robinson has given History a

landmark phrase to usher in a new era.

I suppose, like most new eras, there will be sharp objections and much gnashing of teeth and bellyaching, etc.

I think a lot of that bellyaching is likely to come from fundamentalist nutbags, by which I mean the people who agree with Pat Robertson but who are not in the public eye much: rank-and-file fundies who want stem cell research stopped. A woman's right to choose ended. Public education Biblically-infused. Etc. We all know their grocery list.

But the phrase, "the god of our many understandings," it seems to me, includes just about everybody -- atheists, agnostics, god-believers of all stripes, polytheists, and so forth.

The shift in human history from many gods to One God was extremely significant. Gene Robinson, IMO, is offering the language for another also-significant shift -- from one God to many understandings.

"The god of our many understandings," in my opinion, is the most historically significant phrase of description in spiritual cultural in centuries, and may bring the world into a new frame of conceptual reference.

[trotsky]

32. Um, no.

The phrase "god of our many understandings" doesn't cover non-believers. Please don't insult me by saying it does. It yet again excludes us while disingenuously pretending to bring us into the tent.

[saltpoint]

33. Hi, trotsky. It does for me. AS a non-believer, or a half-assed agnostic

with a bookshelf, I understand that to be all-inclusive.

I don't wish to speak for Bishop Robinson and will interact more on his text once I've heard it / read it.

But I do believe it is his understanding from my above-referenced NPR interview he did, that GOOMU brings in and even welcomes all paths, including the orthodox atheists and gray-framed agnostics who are among my most valued acqaintences.

The controversy, IMO, is likely to spin out over Robinson's deliberate exclusion of 'Jesus' in his text.

[trotsky]

34. Good for you. It doesn't for me.

And I'm going to guess that I'm not alone. And what the hell is an "orthodox atheist"?

[saltpoint]

35. You could have the correct interpretation. I will just wait to see what

the man has to say.

[cosmik debris]

36. "welcomes all paths"???

I understand god to be a comic book hero with super powers and followers like the Star Trek geeks who buy a Klingon Dictionary and pretend it is relevant.

I find it hard to see how that path can be included or reconciled with those who understand god to be real and relevant.

I know I have never felt welcome in any conversation where the existence of god was taken for granted.

[saltpoint]

37. Well you will likely have to listen to Robinson like the rest of us to see

what context is presented.

Did you hear the NPR interview?

[cosmik debris]

38. I won't waste my time

I can always find better things to do than listening to preachers praying.

[saltpoint]

39. okey doke.