October 1, 2024

 God—Historically a Remarkable Concept 

1. We can go straight to the point:  Historically, some people claim to have a direct relationship with God, and that others can do the same.  The relationship is one involving an interaction directly between the consciousness of God and the consciousness of the individual—as in spirit to spirit.  All it takes is for an individual to turn his/her conscious focus to this Force called God.  Every culture throughout recorded history has expressed such experiences in both their writings and art.
   
   
2. Now for a little fill-in:  As it is often reported, the experience is private and unique to each individual at a given moment in time.  It is a unique interaction in that no one other than God can directly access an individual’s conscious experience, and this only happens when an individual chooses to turn his/her conscious focus to God.  Some report a sense of presence, particularly when the noise and demands of the world are minimized.  This may occur when alone in a forest setting or driving a car on a road with few other cars.  Perhaps ironically, a similar sense of aloneness can be felt when in a noisy crowd as found in a Las Vegas casino or at a party where no one is communicating.  In such settings, when one turns his/her own focus to that Force, ideas come that otherwise do not come.  Additionally, connections among everyday experiences are seen in a way not seen otherwise.  Working with others is enhanced when they are also seeking a relationship with God.
   
   
3. Alternatively, for those who reject a personal relationship with God, some of whom create images of God and worship those images.  Historically, the worship of images has been termed idolatry.  That is, you create an image and then worship the image you have created.  They form groups and select a leader who acts as mediator between God and the group.  The bigger the group, the less one’s self awareness—lost in the crowd, so to speak.  It is believed that God tells the leaders how to guide the flock of followers.  Some leaders claim that they were called by God to take a leadership role on His behalf.  To fulfill this role, God gave them knowledge of good and evil.  Within this context, the responsibilities of leaders are both broad and intense.  Claiming that God is on their side, some leaders will guide their group into taking over a competing group—peacefully if possible, and through war if necessary.  And again, there are instances when a stronger or more established leader takes over another’s flock by creating a negative image of the competing leader so as to bring about his removal.  Then, a new image is created to which the total flock can worship.  Sometimes groups will be combined by rallying around the lowest common denominator or in the name of equality.  In all of this, successful leaders become stronger and enforce a belief in top-down decision-making.
   
   

   With a God-given ability to distinguish good from evil, leaders provide guidance regarding how to be good and avoid evil.  One tradition contends that everyone is evil to some degree, and a sacrifice is required to off-set evil with something good.  A blemish-free adult, child, or animal has been used for this purpose.  Furthermore, when leaders judge a follower as good, it gives rise to a sense of self-righteousness in the follower along with an expectation of rewards.  On the other hand, when the leader judges someone evil, it gives rise to a sense of sin and deserving of punishment along with increased subordination to the leader.  To avoid punishment, leaders can provide a few words, if uttered, can save one from punishment.  Additionally, leaders have the role of identifying writings that they claim are words from God.  Then, in God’s name, the leader can interpret such writings and use them to guide the flock.   

   It can be observed that some leaders will modestly accept praise as when a day is set aside to honor them or when putting their names and images on buildings, monuments, and streets.  While making a public showing of humility when accepting praise, notice will be taken of those who withhold such praise and they become targets for shunning and denigration. 

4. Returning to those who believe in a direct relationship between an individual and God:  It has been described as a walk where today’s steps are guided by yesterday’s understanding.  Over time, change can be seen as a maturational process as one’s own integrity expands to cover an increasing number of experiences.  It’s all built on faith, given that an individual can’t know God or even know himself.  What is knowable is the interaction between God and the individual.  For many, it is significant that the spirit-to-spirit relationship can address the matter of death.   Physical death creates a barrier to achieving meaning and purpose in life.  In this regard, an ancient Greek idea, inspired by the Myth of Sisyphus, describes physical life as pushing a rock up a hill only for it to roll down at the time of death.  However, while the physical body may physically die, the non-physical spirit could continue if the God of Nature simply chooses to establish another point of contact between the conscious spirit of God and the conscious spirit of the individual.   Additionally, a sense of meaning and purpose could be achieved with a belief that the Force creating human nature has integrity, and it can be seen to follow that all human experience could be rationally integrated.  There can be a deep sense of satisfaction when feeling one is living a life having integrity.  For now, the relationship is just a matter of non-judgmentally sharing one’s experiences with God and letting God respond however He chooses.  Said another way, “Let God be God and let me be me.”
   
   

5. Closing: As human nature would have it, no person is in a position to judge another—or even one’s self, for that matter.  They can make contracts such as “You don’t kill me and I won’t kill you” and let’s agree to all drive on the same side of the street.  By extension, incarceration is for the protection of the citizenry and not reflecting a moral judgment calling for punishment.  We take note that, arguably, advocating anything other than a direct relationship between God and an individual is outside the realm of human experience.  While one can follow a leader, this reflects a belief in the leader and not a belief in God.  And again, believing a book’s writings to be from God is not the same as a belief in God.
   
   

   The belief in a direct and non-judgmental relationship between God and the individual has a long history:  (a) The writer of Genesis (2:17) cautioned against claiming to have knowledge of good and evil.  Even more to the point, doing so is the one act that separates the individual from having a relationship with God and leads to all other missteps.  (b) An idea attributed to Jesus was not to judge (Luke 6:37), but to have a direct interaction as when you “go to your closet and turn your thoughts to God” (Matthew 6:6, KJV).  (c) The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prioritizes individual rights when it comes to religion.  As Virginia’s representative George Mason (1787) put it:  “I’d rather cut off my hand than put it to signing a constitution without a bill of individual rights.  More recently, the 1977 movie Star Wars immortalized the phrase “May the Force Be With You” [according to its creator, George Lucas, the phrase was lifted from a 1963 film by Arthur Lipsett].  “May the Force Be With You” can be seen as a salutation befitting those who believe in a personal relationship between God and the individual.

Anticipating the next posting in about 10-20 days with the topic: “Failed Institutions and Me”