My World Gathering

Julian Carver: I have struggled for a few weeks now trying to make sense of what your report means to me. Your comments on there being no common ground when it came to beliefs, and the only resort being to try what Love would do, stopped me in my tracks. It has forced me to delve much deeper into what I mean when I say 'God' or 'that of God'. These feel like these have become placeholders, even platitudes, that have stopped me really understanding what I mean. It seems to me that beliefs, if anything, just get in the way of Love, get in the way of accepting one another. Who we are, what we do seem to be so much deeper, to hold so much more promise in connecting with each other, than any (allbeit fascinating) discussion about whether we believe the same things. To love people because they simply are, that seems better to me than looking for shared beliefs. To love them simply because they exist, rather than because we can see goodness in them, that seems more powerful. And maybe that is for me what seeking 'that of God' in people is. Not neccessarily looking for, or finding sameness, or goodness (or even difference). Perhaps for me 'that of God' is simply that they are. And I don't have to agree with them. I just have to love them. (11/05/05)

Leith: Thankyou for that Julian :0) I don't want to put anyone off voicing other opinions on this stuff, but I also know what it's like to feel you have been 'heard', and I really want to tell you how beautiful I think your comment is.

I've heard people translate 'there is that of God in everyone' into 'there is that which is good in everyone' (maybe in attempts to make it more 'true' for non-religious Friends). But, for me, the translation doesn't mean the same thing. And that's complicated, because when I hear the word 'God' in this saying, I certainly don't understand it to mean 'deity' or 'spirit' or any of the other common meanings of the word. What I think of is much closer to what you describe . . . a sense that a person (or animal, or plant . . .) is of value. There is no 'because'. (11/06/05)

Anna D: Maybe that of god is perhaps that essential 'oneness' (maybe I've read too many Richard Bach books...). That which links us all together literally through our physical atomic structure ( I'm not a scientist - hope I'm using the right words here), that which links us back to the star dust from whence all matter on earth originally came - it fits with there being that of god in all things as well as all people, that which links what 'is' with what could have been and what might be. I seem to remember reading something recently that said many scientists are agreeing that there is an unmeasurable 'force' or something if you go down to the tiniest level which makes the difference between something being alive or not and so on - wish I could remember it better. For me anyhow it was a pretty good explanation of that of god in every one - that which makes something 'real'. (11/06/05)

Leith: That's a cool comment Anna, thanks! There is something appealing about everything being made out of the same kind of stuff, if you look closely enough :0) I'm just thinking, though, about the usefulness/truthfulness of retaining the word 'God' when the concept seems to have evolved into something quite different from the usual construction of a diety . . . (11/15/05)