In Reply to: Re: What works for me (repost) posted by ray on January 27, 2004 at 08:08:16:
I am uncertain about these basic assumptions:
1) God is personal
2) God created humans for a relationship
I go back and forth in my understanding of higher power as to whether it a diety or "divine person" with whom I can enter into an intimate relationship--or whether it is a "principle" that pervades existence.
The problem with personal dieties is that humans have this tendency to create them in their own likeness and image. The idea that this divine person is like a mother or father is just too Freudian for me. Or like a middle-eastern potentate--Kings and Lords are too patriarchal & hierarchal to work. Or like a lover--too...pre-menopausal. Don't get me wrong, I love sex. But when I read Zerby's take on God as husband & lover, I just want to puke.
I currently work with a concept of God as Something Other. Something other than anything I can imagine or understand. Something other than anything I can control or manipulate through a personal relationship of prayer, fasting, religious rituals, praise & worship, etc.,
Problem is, I'm not sure that Something Other is "God" according to Judeo-Christian revelation. I'm probably more of a deist at this point than a theist. If I have a personal relationship with Something Other, then it is purely a matter of accepting what is and staying open to becoming.
"Becoming"--now there's an interesting word that just popped out of the ether as I struggled to find a term that would signify the dynamic nature of existence.
Another meaning for "becoming" is "suitable or appropriate." Kind of like moral force, no?
I don't have a ready answer to your bottom-line question. "Sifting evidence" sounds good at first blush, but I'm not sure what is implied by that.