The Infinite Mercy of God

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The one book that I read while I was on vacation was Anne Rice's Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt, which Whistler mentioned some time ago. I actually enjoyed the book very much; I think it gives a fascinating portrait of Jewish life 2000 years ago (it seems very authentic to me, and Rice is known for her historical research, but I can't say for sure since I lack the background), as well as what it might have been like for a seven year old boy to discover that he was the Son of God. I pretty much endorse everything that Whistler said about it a year ago. But what I really wanted to discuss was not the book itself, but something that Rice wrote in a note to the paperback edition regarding her return to the Catholic faith, after years of being a passionate atheist (which is why I started a new thread here rather then posting in the thread in the Library that Whistler had started).

How, I asked myself, could I express the love for God that I felt by becoming a member of a community of believers when I didn't know what I thought about the literal truth of Adam or Eve or Original Sin? How could I join with fellow believers who thought my gay son was going to Hell? How could I become connected Christians who held that there was no evidence for Darwinian evolution, or that women should not have control over their own bodies? How could I affirm my belief in a faith that was itself so characterized by argument and strife?

Well, what happened to me on that Sunday that I returned to faith was this: I received a glimpse into what I can only call the Infinite Mercy of God. It worked something like this. I realized that none of my theological or social questions really made any difference. I didn't have to know the answers to these questions precisely because God did. He was the God who made the Universe in which I existed. That meant He had made the Big Bang, He had made DNA, He had made the Black Holes in space, and the wind and the rain and the individual snowflakes that fall from the sky. He had done all that. So surely He could do virtually anything and He could solve virtually everything. And how could I possibly know what He knew? And why should I remain apart from him because I could not grasp all that He could grasp? What came over me then was an infinite trust, trust in His power and His love. I didn't have to worry about the ultimate fate of my good atheistic friends, gay or straight, because He knew all about them, and He was holding them in His hands. I didn't have to quake alone in terror at the thought of those who die untimely deaths from illness, or the countless millions destroyed in the horrors of war. He knew all about them. He had always been holding them in His hands.

He and only He knew the full story of every person who'd ever lived or would live; He and He alone knew what person was given what choice, what chance, what opportunity, what amount of time, to come to Him and by what path.

That I couldn't possibly know all was as clear to me as my awareness that He did.

Now, as many of you know, I am neither a Catholic nor any other form of Christian. I have never have been, and I don't suspect that I ever will be. And yet, these words resonate deeply with me; they really do express my own beliefs very well. I don't know what that makes me. I just know that I find comfort in the thought.

[truehobbit]

I very much agree with that, too.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[narya]

I think I'm guilty of doing what Saruman was accused of doing - taking something apart to see how it (used to) work. I examined my faith too closely and lost it. I looked for God in the details and didn't find him. Now I'm trying to build a more transcendent faith that is more similar to what you quoted above - the concept that there can be universal benevolence, and that I can chose be a part of it. The details just distractions.

[Frelga]

It's not a bad foundation to build a faith on. I myself believe that the Creator holds the ultimate answers, whether He made the Big Bang or stuffed fake dinosaur bones into Earth crust.

The real test is when it comes to acting on that faith. Take it one way, and you get someone selflessly serving the fellow humans, regardless of religion. Go the other way, and you could end up with "kill everybody, God will know His own". Ms. Rice chose to write a book about her vision of God, and if the book is as good as Whistler and V say, then it's a worthwhile choice.

[Frelga]

It's not a bad foundation to build a faith on. I myself believe that the Creator holds the ultimate answers, whether He made the Big Bang or stuffed fake dinosaur bones into Earth crust.

The real test is when it comes to acting on that faith. Take it one way, and you get someone selflessly serving the fellow humans, regardless of religion. Go the other way, and you could end up with "kill everybody, God will know His own". Ms. Rice chose to write a book about her vision of God, and if the book is as good as Whistler and V say, then it's a worthwhile choice.

[anthriel]

Thank you for posting this, Sir V! This is wonderfully written, and I have to say that I agree very much with what she is saying.

I once annoyed someone on this board (hope I don't do it again!) by saying that I am grateful I am not responsible for the machinations of the universe, and I still feel that way.

One of the things my pastor says a lot is "God is God, and you are not".

I find that vastly comforting.

[yovargas]

In the book History of God by Karen Armstrong, the argument is made, perhaps indirectly, that though virtually all societies have a conception of God, that conception naturally evolves based on the spiritual needs of the society. Thus, societies can have, over time, drastically different views of religion or of God, even when it is still called the same faith (Christianity, in this case). I bring this up only because I've been noticing a lot over the past decade a strong shift from more rational view of god to more spiritual or "transcendent" (as narya, put it) view of god. I know that for myself, the idea of god meant little until I made that shift in how I looked at it. As long as I required god to make full, clear, rational sense, the concept of god was useless and meaningless to me. I see more and more people embracing this grander and more mysterious view of god - myself included - and I wonder what it says about our societies evolving spiritual needs.

One of the things my pastor says a lot is "God is God, and you are not".

No, but you are an angel.

[truehobbit]

I once annoyed someone on this board (hope I don't do it again!) by saying that I am grateful I am not responsible for the machinations of the universe, and I still feel that way.

I've annoyed lots of people with saying basically what it says in Rice's text, only phrased very differently and not so nicely.

I bring this up only because I've been noticing a lot over the past decade a strong shift from more rational view of god to more spiritual or "transcendent" (as narya, put it) view of god.

Hmmh, I'm not sure I would define that as "rational" vs "spiritual". I think the main idea of what you seem to mean by "rational" is the idea that Man can do anything and everything depends on Man, who is able to understand and control everything if he only tries hard enough.
The idea that this is not the case, and that we are not in control of everything, that we neither can nor should nor need be in control isn't necessarily "spiritual". On the contrary, I would characterise the discovery and acknowledgement of our own limitations as highly rational.
I agree, however, that in the first mindset it is difficult to fit God in.

[halplm]

I have found, that most people that do not believe in God, or religion, or anythign outside of themselves, are that way because they need to completely understand something. They can't believe in something that doesn't fit into a little box and make perfect sense to them. The only option left to them is to believe nothing about God, because frankly... he can't be put into a little box .

On the opposite end of the spectrum, of course are people that want to believe in him and some things so badly... they'll make their little box they can handle... and say that that is All God is. This, of course, leads to what some would consider far worse than athiests... Baptists... (I kid, really!)

Of course, the entire spectrum can take things out on people that say what we're saying here... "Hey, we don't understand it all... but we can't understand it all and it's not worth trying... because God will sort it out."

I have wanted to read Rice's book since I heard about it. This makes me want to read it more. I particularly like this bit:

He and only He knew the full story of every person who'd ever lived or would live; He and He alone knew what person was given what choice, what chance, what opportunity, what amount of time, to come to Him and by what path.

[yovargas]

Hmmh, I'm not sure I would define that as "rational" vs "spiritual". I think the main idea of what you seem to mean by "rational" is the idea that Man can do anything and everything depends on Man, who is able to understand and control everything if he only tries hard enough.
The idea that this is not the case, and that we are not in control of everything, that we neither can nor should nor need be in control isn't necessarily "spiritual". On the contrary, I would characterise the discovery and acknowledgement of our own limitations as highly rational.
I agree, however, that in the first mindset it is difficult to fit God in.

My choice of "rational" vs "spiritual" is probably a bit poor, though ultra-precision is a bit difficult in this topic. I was talking about how we approach God, thinking that in the not-so-distant past, people mostly seemed to approach God with a more "rational" mindset. Thinking with hard lines and clear rules and structures. More like "This is what God is, this is what God has done, this is what God wants, and this is what God doesn't want." IE. an attempt to understand God and religion from the perspective of logic.

What I'm saying is that I see more and more people moving away from that, people sort of giving in to the mystery of God. Not merely accepting the unknowability of God but standing in awe of it, making the grand mystery of it all a more central part of how we view our spiritual lives...and moving away from the "here's what's right and here's what's wrong" brand of religion. In short, perhaps, being able to say "I don't understand" like Rice does and finding...beauty...in that.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In short, perhaps, being able to say "I don't understand" like Rice does and finding...beauty...in that.

[yovargas]

backatcha

[Cerin]

I am also in agreement with the passage you quoted, Voronwë.

[yovargas]

Just wanted to clarify that my posts weren't meant as a criticism of any particular view. I view what I'm calling here the "rational" religious approach the more traditional viewpoint - certainly the viewpoint that I grew up with - but I'm not saying that viewpoint is bad or wrong, merely that it seems to not be meeting the spiritual needs of many of today's people.

[Maria]

I wonder if some personality types need a more transcendent idea of God, while others need a more solid, anthropomorphic visualization?

[axordil]

Interesting question, Maria. It would surprise me if there were not a correlation. Now, what exactly the correlation would be is another question. Is it a N/S thing, do you think? Or a T/F thing?

[yovargas]

Practically anything you read about NFs paints them as naturally "mystical". The NF description often sound to me like reading a stereotype of a New Age hippe.

[narya]

Yov, your discussion of the rational versus spiritual reminds me of the difference between the highly analytical and extremely well educated Jesuit take on Catholicism vs the almost non-verbal Franciscan mysticism. Saint Ignatius (Jesuit founder) developed a 30 day very detailed set of Spiritual Exercises. Saint Francis, on the other hand, would spend the entire night on his knees just saying "My God and my All".

[yovargas]

That's exactly the kind of thing I was talking about, though taken to the extremes of both ends.