One of my weaknesses is I believe you interpret life the same way I do. I think you think like I think.

Extrapolate this concept to a much grander scale…to the scale of infinity, where we meet God. Somewhere in the grand, human process, we went there, came back and then continued with our day-to-day lives. As we went about our ordinary lives we developed religious and spiritual beliefs in a limited, human state of consciousness. One of these is our definition of God. Most western religions claim to be based on the Bible, which is a source that generates an image of a very human-like God. This result is not surprising with words like, “God created man in his own image.”

Throughout history, we have assigned a “personage” to God which has many human characteristics; we see God in human terms and give him a human likeness. We gave God ears (He listens to us); we gave Him a mouth and larynx (God talks to us); we gave Him feelings like dissatisfied, displeased, and unhappy if we do something outside His rules.

I think God is not a person…especially not in the way that’s been spawned in our minds.

In several books I’ve read recently, God lets us know that he is nothing like we think. In The Shack, he deliberately takes on the appearance of a woman, and then proceeds to call himself “Papa.” In Conversations With God, he very directly states, “I am not what you think.” And although it was not their intention, the authors of Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness gave us the preliminary framework we can use to begin to grasp a possible nature of God. All of these accounts show an image of God that is very unlike anything I have encountered.

For now, I don’t think I am capable of expanding my consciousness to the point of infinity, so I’ll take small steps. I first choose to walk away from my earlier belief that God is human-like. Next, I choose to believe that God is nothing like I imagine. Then I choose to allow God to take any shape He prefers. After all…He is God.

Then again, what do I know? I’m just an ordinary guy with a weakness, who thinks you think like I think.

Curiously,
David Wine

(An email exchange with one of my sons…)

Me: WWJD. What does that mean? I know it’s an acronym for What Would Jesus Do, but still
I wonder what it means.

A friend told me it was a motto that reminded her to act in a manner Jesus would approve of. I don’t like the philosophy. It seems like Motivation By Guilt. “If I act a certain way, then Jesus will approve and I will be in His good graces.”

Jesus’ intention wasn’t to teach a guilt-laden philosophy. It’s not what He was all about. He was all about love. Not guilt.

Zac: I don’t have a connection with the emotion of guilt in the same way you do because I was never taught it. However I have studied the question “Is man good or evil from birth?” I believe that someone who asks WWJD strongly agrees that man is born evil and that man must constantly do good deeds for redemption… or give up and do bad deeds because it’s easier.

WWJD is an idea that clearly formed AFTER Jesus’ death. Paul and Peter both taught the concept of WWJD. Unfortunately it never fully developed into “What would Peter do?” or “What would Paul do?” It almost did but no one at the beginning of Christianity took the full leap.

“What would we do better than our predecessors?” would be a slightly better question. I can’t speak for generations past, but my generation (yours too) has asked “What would our parents do?” and then we did the opposite. The trick is to live without regret AND learn from your mistakes at the same time. What would David do now? What would David do next time? It’s not an easy skill to accept and move on to accept again.

Me: Are you saying“WWJD” is a motto of guilt — but “What Would David Do” is more like me encouraging me to live by my highest values?

Zac: If more people assumed that man was born good, more people would ask internally “What would I do?” and then act in the best possible way they know. It’s really not a question of “what is globally moral?” but a question of “what is locally (or personally) moral?” Sometimes the two will conflict and that’s okay.

I believe the real conflict comes when asking WWJD becomes a quest for global morality.

Me: That feels true! Jesus focused on the thing of the moment, taking care of his local (personal) values and look what he accomplished. His story is about someone who taught higher principles and values; who enjoyed healing the sick and lame; who performed miracles for the purpose of bringing good to peoples’ lives. He didn’t act for the purpose of fame or notoriety. He loved people and enjoyed sharing His love. His story doesn’t include, “If you don’t act the way I tell you, then I will heap guilt on you.” He simply loved.

So seriously, WWDD? …or WWZD?

Zac: Is that egotistical? Did Jesus ask “What should I do?” Jesus taught people to act like him and yet we have not had a Christian messiah since him. There have been some saints but no prophets. Ironic that it had to end with him.

Still inquisitive,
David Wine