Relationship with God (Whether or Not He Exists)

[Received]

Some posters have made the pretty interesting comment that atheists relate to God whether or not they believe in him.

Which is true, provided that 1) God exists, and 2) God isn't some aloof deity who doesn't interact with the universe at all. Let's assume these two provisions (for the sake of argument, please) are true.

How, then, does God relate to human beings in a way that transcends belief?

As a side point, I think if people were actually able to articulately explain how God interacts with people, in a Christian or non-Christian sense (i.e., "saved" or "not saved" sense), belief in God would be a much more viable thing. The problem with much of Christian spirituality is that nobody seems to know how God relates to human beings, especially in a non-salvific context, without saying empty phrases like, "have a personal relationship with Jesus," or "Jesus lives in your heart."

 

[Gadarene]

As a side point, I think if people were actually able to articulately explain how God interacts with people, in a Christian or non-Christian sense (i.e., "saved" or "not saved" sense), belief in God would be a much more viable thing. The problem with much of Christian spirituality is that nobody seems to know how God relates to human beings, especially in a non-salvific context, without saying empty phrases like, "have a personal relationship with Jesus," or "Jesus lives in your heart."

I would sort of agree and disagree with this.

Derp.

I would agree that Christianity, or at least Christianity inspired by the Bible and little else (as opposed to a strong, and reasonably canonical church/teaching tradition) doesn't actually give much in the way of methodology when it comes to acquiring belief or dealing with problems.

The example I've been thinking of recently is Christ's suggestion "Do not worry". Great idea there Jesus me old mucker, but how exactly do I accomplish that? I never really got what I'd consider to be a decent and canonical answer to that. And without an actual methodology it resembles telling a depressed person to pull themselves together - not really helpful and tends to just make them feel worse. And worse still, if it's connected to some nebulous concept like "the spiritual fruit of peace", then you just feel defective for not being peaceful. After all, if you had the spirit reeeeally, then you'd be feeling at peace.

What I am enjoying so far with my foray into Therevada Buddhism so far is that when it comes to the solving of daily problems bit (anxieties etc), they actually have a methodology of meditation that they use specifically for dealing with emotional issues like worry. And that's what they start teaching you the moment you walk in the door at my temple.

I realise this isn't quite the same thing, but I think the problem of how exactly one acquires belief not being clearly enunciated is a similar one.

On the other hand - how do I disagree? Well, certain Christians are very confident that I was never a Christian. I find that Christians seem very sure about what belief in god isn't - curiously they seem to gain that confidence right about the time you start strongly criticising their religion and you tell them that you're not an idiot about what Christianity can entail because you were one for 20 years.

Good OP (although sorry for steering it adrift somewhat)

 

[quatona]

Some posters have made the pretty interesting comment that atheists relate to God whether or not they believe in him.

Which is true, provided that 1) God exists, and 2) God isn't some aloof deity who doesn't interact with the universe at all. Let's assume these two provisions (for the sake of argument, please) are true.

How, then, does God relate to human beings in a way that transcends belief?

I guess it all hinges on how you define "relate". Depending on the definition, I could argue both ways.

Ok, just to make it more interesting, I will argue for the following position:
We never relate to a person - we always relate to our idea of a person (our inner image). For that relationship it is pretty irrelevant whether this person exists and whether we believe this person exist. All that is relevant is that we have an inner image of her.

Then again, I could argue from the position that things, objects, persons don´t exist, anyway. The division of *all that is" into distinct objects is just a performance of our minds. But I guess that would lead to far off-topic.

As a side point, I think if people were actually able to articulately explain how God interacts with people, in a Christian or non-Christian sense (i.e., "saved" or "not saved" sense), belief in God would be a much more viable thing.

You mean like "God sent the flood to New Orleans as a punishment for [insert sinful behaviour of choice]"?

The problem with much of Christian spirituality is that nobody seems to know how God relates to human beings, especially in a non-salvific context, without saying empty phrases like, "have a personal relationship with Jesus," or "Jesus lives in your heart."

Yes, we hardly ever get a description of that relationship/interaction. That´s a pity. Well, I recall a young girl at GA a couple of years ago who went to great length describing how she prayed for a pink t-shirt, and finally her parents indeed bought it for her.

 

[Paradoxum]

I used to think that atheists (and non-Christians in general) related to God (Christ), even if they didn't know it. When people considered and acted on morality they were interacting with God, and could be saved if their heart was in the right place in relation to God/goodness.

In my opinion (now and while I was a moderate/ liberal Christian) the idea of salvation by accepting propositions about God seems quite strange. It seems that following God is what is required... but you can follow someone without knowing who they are. You follow God by trying to be good, and non-Christians can do that.


“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ ~Matthew 25: 34-40

 

[Ana the Ist]

Some posters have made the pretty interesting comment that atheists relate to God whether or not they believe in him.

Which is true, provided that 1) God exists, and 2) God isn't some aloof deity who doesn't interact with the universe at all. Let's assume these two provisions (for the sake of argument, please) are true.

How, then, does God relate to human beings in a way that transcends belief?

As a side point, I think if people were actually able to articulately explain how God interacts with people, in a Christian or non-Christian sense (i.e., "saved" or "not saved" sense), belief in God would be a much more viable thing. The problem with much of Christian spirituality is that nobody seems to know how God relates to human beings, especially in a non-salvific context, without saying empty phrases like, "have a personal relationship with Jesus," or "Jesus lives in your heart."

Even if we assume 1 and 2 are true, they aren't enough to answer the question you posit. You would have to assume 3 "that god interacts with man in manner x". This would, of course, answer the question though.

 

[Gadarene]

Also it would be nice if whatever manner of relationship we have with God even as atheists were sufficient for salvation.

 

[Received]

I used to think that atheists (and non-Christians in general) related to God (Christ), even if they didn't know it. When people considered and acted on morality they were interacting with God, and could be saved if their heart was in the right place in relation to God/goodness.

In my opinion (now and while I was a moderate/ liberal Christian) the idea of salvation by accepting propositions about God seems quite strange. It seems that following God is what is required... but you can follow someone without knowing who they are. You follow God by trying to be good, and non-Christians can do that.


“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ ~Matthew 25: 34-40

Also it would be nice if whatever manner of relationship we have with God even as atheists were sufficient for salvation.

I know what you mean. I was a pretty conservative Christian before wrestling with this idea for a while, concluding that this view of salvation is what I dubbed "Divine Transactionalism": you believe specific concepts about God and Jesus, and God writes it down in his big heavenly business book, and you're good to go unless you question this particular conception. Which reeks of religious tribalism more than anything.

My view is that to relate to something by definition transcends conceptualization. This goes for our relationship with *anything*: we relate first and conceptualize later, the thing of which we're attempting to conceptualize always a mystical step ahead of what we're trying to put into words, or even what we're capable of grasping through the filtering process of our senses.

To me, anyone can be "spiritual" in the sense that they relate to God regardless of cognitive standing, because (and this is part of a pretty complicated theological position) "knowing God" (knowledge by acquaintance) involves exercising your will in a specific way, which the hippies mostly get by speaking about "living by one's conscience." The advantage of the religious life (as opposed to the spiritual) is that it involves naming the previously unknown, which brings about a much greater propensity for positive transformation of character (salvation) given that by naming you can now "latch onto" what previously was unknown and related to somewhat arbitrarily (or perhaps even misnamed as "just biology" or "social conditioning").

And it's very much possible for a person to live with a totally accurate *conception* of God and not relate to him at all, and you might even call it a sort of aesthetic to do so. "The atheist staring from his attic window is often nearer to God than the believer caught up in his own false image of God.” -- Martin Buber

 

[Nooj]

I would sort of agree and disagree with this.

Derp.

I would agree that Christianity, or at least Christianity inspired by the Bible and little else (as opposed to a strong, and reasonably canonical church/teaching tradition) doesn't actually give much in the way of methodology when it comes to acquiring belief or dealing with problems.

The example I've been thinking of recently is Christ's suggestion "Do not worry". Great idea there Jesus me old mucker, but how exactly do I accomplish that? I never really got what I'd consider to be a decent and canonical answer to that. And without an actual methodology it resembles telling a depressed person to pull themselves together - not really helpful and tends to just make them feel worse. And worse still, if it's connected to some nebulous concept like "the spiritual fruit of peace", then you just feel defective for not being peaceful. After all, if you had the spirit reeeeally, then you'd be feeling at peace.

What I am enjoying so far with my foray into Therevada Buddhism so far is that when it comes to the solving of daily problems bit (anxieties etc), they actually have a methodology of meditation that they use specifically for dealing with emotional issues like worry. And that's what they start teaching you the moment you walk in the door at my temple.

I realise this isn't quite the same thing, but I think the problem of how exactly one acquires belief not being clearly enunciated is a similar one.

I used to think the same thing and to some extent still do. Some of what made that go away for me was the realisation that I didn't know much about Christianity. For example, I'd never even heard of Christian meditation, the practices of prayer and breathing and mental exercises directed towards God. Hesychasm for example in the Orthodox tradition. Maybe that's because I was from a Protestant family, but to admit my ignorance further, I still don't know if the Protestants have meditative practices.

Having been apart from Christianity for a long time, ever since I was a kid, I don't really know what Christians 'do', maybe in churches they do practical stuff, I don't really know.

 

[Paradoxum]

I know what you mean. I was a pretty conservative Christian before wrestling with this idea for a while, concluding that this view of salvation is what I dubbed "Divine Transactionalism": you believe specific concepts about God and Jesus, and God writes it down in his big heavenly business book, and you're good to go unless you question this particular conception. Which reeks of religious tribalism more than anything.

My view is that to relate to something by definition transcends conceptualization. This goes for our relationship with *anything*: we relate first and conceptualize later, the thing of which we're attempting to conceptualize always a mystical step ahead of what we're trying to put into words, or even what we're capable of grasping through the filtering process of our senses.

To me, anyone can be "spiritual" in the sense that they relate to God regardless of cognitive standing, because (and this is part of a pretty complicated theological position) "knowing God" (knowledge by acquaintance) involves exercising your will in a specific way, which the hippies mostly get by speaking about "living by one's conscience." The advantage of the religious life (as opposed to the spiritual) is that it involves naming the previously unknown, which brings about a much greater propensity for positive transformation of character (salvation) given that by naming you can now "latch onto" what previously was unknown and related to somewhat arbitrarily (or perhaps even misnamed as "just biology" or "social conditioning").

And it's very much possible for a person to live with a totally accurate *conception* of God and not relate to him at all, and you might even call it a sort of aesthetic to do so. "The atheist staring from his attic window is often nearer to God than the believer caught up in his own false image of God.” -- Martin Buber

 

[Gadarene]

Edit: Sorry, this is in response to Nooj

Well, I don't think they really do. I just made a point similar to this in another thread on this board.

I think Protestantism lost a lot with its Sola Scriptura focus. There seems to be less emphasis on contemplative Christianity and even more on orthodoxy - there are fewer Protestant monastic orders, iirc. And when only the Bible is regarded as canon, anything that isn't the Bible can have suspicion more readily cast upon it.

The one form of Christian meditation I have done in my life is a labyrinth.

Labyrinth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wouldn't do it again in the same sense given that I'm not a Christian, but I liked the experience of changing your contemplative focus while moving. Would do that again.

 

[Gadarene]

I know what you mean. I was a pretty conservative Christian before wrestling with this idea for a while, concluding that this view of salvation is what I dubbed "Divine Transactionalism": you believe specific concepts about God and Jesus, and God writes it down in his big heavenly business book, and you're good to go unless you question this particular conception. Which reeks of religious tribalism more than anything.

My view is that to relate to something by definition transcends conceptualization. This goes for our relationship with *anything*: we relate first and conceptualize later, the thing of which we're attempting to conceptualize always a mystical step ahead of what we're trying to put into words, or even what we're capable of grasping through the filtering process of our senses.

To me, anyone can be "spiritual" in the sense that they relate to God regardless of cognitive standing, because (and this is part of a pretty complicated theological position) "knowing God" (knowledge by acquaintance) involves exercising your will in a specific way, which the hippies mostly get by speaking about "living by one's conscience." The advantage of the religious life (as opposed to the spiritual) is that it involves naming the previously unknown, which brings about a much greater propensity for positive transformation of character (salvation) given that by naming you can now "latch onto" what previously was unknown and related to somewhat arbitrarily (or perhaps even misnamed as "just biology" or "social conditioning").

And it's very much possible for a person to live with a totally accurate *conception* of God and not relate to him at all, and you might even call it a sort of aesthetic to do so. "The atheist staring from his attic window is often nearer to God than the believer caught up in his own false image of God.” -- Martin Buber

I don't even know if I would use the term "god" for this, but it's what I think is closest to a universal approach to life.

Ultimately the best forms of spiritual morality IMO are ones that are personal and inclusive rather than prescriptive and exclusionary. Argumentation and discussion can thrash out some of the differences we invariably bump into dealing with other troublesome meatbags who disagree with us

 

[bhsmte]

I don't even know if I would use the term "god" for this, but it's what I think is closest to a universal approach to life.

Ultimately the best forms of spiritual morality IMO are ones that are personal and inclusive rather than prescriptive and exclusionary. Argumentation and discussion can thrash out some of the differences we invariably bump into dealing with other troublesome meatbags who disagree with us

I would agree.

Whenever you have outside sources trying to define what you should be connecting to from a spirtual perspective, you will run into the round peg square hole problem. We are all psychologically unique and discovering without undue pressure is most advantageous. You have the christian concept of God, which one can reconcile and connect with or they cant and to me, that would on each person's psychological makeup.

 

[Gadarene]

Well absolutely. It increasingly astounds me that humanity has such wonderful diversity, with each person having their own unique individuality. And what do we so often do instead? Insist they fit themselves to one of about a dozen prescriptive religious boxes. We're all different, so why in the word do we think our spiritualities must be identical?

I remember in my Christian days seeing (and, I'm sorry to say, joining in with) a lot of snide judgement being passed on people with unconventional beliefs or a system where they attempted to integrate ideas from multiple belief systems. Calling them wishy washy or new agey or some other ignorant name. Having ended up as some kind of quasi Buddhist Quaker atheist hybrid (at least for the last few months) has certainly changed my mind about that.

I actually realise now that those people had the bravery to at least be pursuing and exploring what spiritual concepts worked for them. They weren't weaker than everyone else - they were stronger for fighting against the tide of convention.

 

[bhsmte]

Well absolutely. It increasingly astounds me that humanity has such wonderful diversity, with each person having their own unique individuality. And what do we so often do instead? Insist they fit themselves to one of about a dozen prescriptive religious boxes. We're all different, so why in the word do we think our spiritualities must be identical?

I remember in my Christian days seeing (and, I'm sorry to say, joining in with) a lot of snide judgement being passed on people with unconventional beliefs or a system where they attempted to integrate ideas from multiple belief systems. Calling them wishy washy or new agey or some other ignorant name. Having ended up as some kind of quasi Buddhist Quaker atheist hybrid (at least for the last few months) has certainly changed my mind about that.

I actually realise now that those people had the bravery to at least be pursuing and exploring what spiritual concepts worked for them. They weren't weaker than everyone else - they were stronger for fighting against the tide of convention.

IMHO, it is quite healthy for one to recognize we are all individuals and there are not tidy boxes you can use to define many of us.

I too was a christian for many years (most of my life) and i also fell into the trap of judging others who disagreed with me. It wasnt until a high stress period of my life, drove me to explore christianity to a much deeper extent for support, that i came to realize i didnt know, what i had convinced myself that i knew.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think if people were actually able to articulately explain how God interacts with people, in a Christian or non-Christian sense (i.e., "saved" or "not saved" sense), belief in God would be a much more viable thing. The problem with much of Christian spirituality is that nobody seems to know how God relates to human beings, especially in a non-salvific context, without saying empty phrases like, "have a personal relationship with Jesus," or "Jesus lives in your heart."

In my view, that's a serious problem. There is no guarantee that the relationship will be a positive one.

IMV, Christians may very well have a relationship with something, though that something is aspect of their own psychologies that doesn't correspond neatly with the human ego. By "ego", I mean that highly conscious aspect of our psychologies that thinks, chooses, wills, and acts, and feels like it is under our own self-directed power. There is far more to the operations of the human mind than this, and it is there that one should look for this inner-God.

I don't think that this inner-God is merely one's conscience, though it may be experienced similarly at times. It may be more closely related to what Carl Jung described as one's inner-guru, with his Philemon as an example. This inner-guru for Jung was a voice that one could speak with, and which seemed to have a wisdom all of its own. I would imagine that such a psychological phenomenon can be "programmed" by reading holy texts.

I'm not suggesting that this inner-God must be experienced as a voice in one's skull. Perhaps it has different expressions depending on how one's brain is wired.

What concerns me most is that there is no guarantee that this inner-guru will generate wisdom. Perhaps it will express the negative side of tribalism instead, leading someone to xenophobic disgust of the Other. If it is programmed by holy texts to some extent, it may be just as limited in viewpoint as the people who had written the texts. It has been said that God seems to hate the same people that one does.

So, yes, I think that a relationship with "God" is certainly possible, though I'm not certain that it is usually desirable.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[David Gould]

Hello Eudaimonist. And Received. And quatona. It has been a while. I am very happy to see three friends still here.


Eudaimonist,


I believe that that was what I was doing when I was a Christian. I spoke to Jesus and he replied in words and feelings. But I was the one who had put the Jesus handle on a part of myself.

 

[Received]

WHAAAAAAAT is this guy doing here?

Hey David!

 

[David Gould]

Hello Received.

I am feeling a little sentimental. I missed some of the interactions and, more importantly, some of the interactees. Very happy to find some still here.

 

[Received]

I just don't have anything better to do.

Freodin occasionally pops in as well. Too bad seebs is just a ghost.

 

[David Gould]

I am going to have to ease back gently into it, I think. Get some out of practice brain cells working again.