Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How Do You Experience G-d?
Although we’ve had a number of discussions on Ricochet about the damage that the Left is inflicting on those who are religious, we’ve seen very little about how people begin and nurture a religious life when there is so much disparagement by those who are secular. I also have been thinking that there are many people who are either atheist, agnostic, or who have no particular interest in having a relationship with religion, and with G-d in particular. I assume that they may be respectful (or not) toward those who believe in G-d, but the idea of pursuing or deepening their understanding of religion seems alien and not a helpful way to spend their time.
I’m not looking to motivate people to become religious if they are not inclined that way. The people I’ve been thinking about are those who, at some level, would like to have a relationship with G-d, but have all kinds of preconceptions about what that means in their lives. I’d also like to propose that their assumptions might be incorrect and make it difficult for them to find a relationship with G-d.
So, I’d like to propose that people from as many religions as possible share what it means to them to experience G-d. “Experience” is a broad and inclusive term, so you aren’t limited in describing your experience. You might describe prayers, particular prayers, meditation, rituals, holidays, study, music, and any other practice that allows you to sense or know that G-d is in your life. No one should try to judge your experience, because it is yours alone. This is not a competition to determine whether one practice is better or wiser than another. I encourage people to share experiences, as opposed to actively proselytizing; that approach has the risk of pushing people away. That doesn’t mean that if you experience Jesus as part of all of your practice, that you shouldn’t share it; on the contrary, that centrality might be important and precious to you.
To give you an example of the ways you might describe how you experience G-d, I’ll speak about myself.
First, I have a general sense of Presence most of my waking hours. It is subtle, but always there. G-d’s Presence is amplified when I hear sacred music—particularly Jewish songs, but even gospel music. I experience G-d in Torah study; I assume He wants me to learn from Him. I experience Him when I pray, especially when I pray in Hebrew; when I meditate in silence; and sometimes when I am with a loved one: I sometimes feel that G-d has blessed both of us and our time together. I recently saw the new grandchild of a friend; even on Zoom, that was a sacred moment. Finally, I often sense G-d when I’m outside when I’m walking; I think the silence around me, even when I listen to a podcast, is palpable. There are other moments as well, but that gives you an idea of what I’d love for you to share in your experience of G-d.
I also believe that G-d may show up without your seeking him, but the odds are not high. Some people have a profound experience in the beginning, but many of us have started in baby steps and seen the relationship mature. It can take time and attention.
The whole idea is for people to realize that one’s experience of G-d can be subtle or profound; connected to formal prayer and study or everyday life; alone or in worship.
* * * * *
You may have noticed that I didn’t mention practicing a specific religion or denomination. I think for many, the idea of connecting to a religion and its teachings is a daunting task. Don’t misunderstand: I think pursuing a relationship with G-d through a religious framework is a key component of a deep practice. I also believe it’s essential for the moral tenets it provides and a supportive community. I think that many people have a difficult time creating a moral framework that isn’t about personal preferences; those are the people who call themselves “spiritual.” I think that pursuing a relationship with G-d first, followed by an exploration of religion, is achievable by most people.
* * * * *
For those of us who believe that G-d is beyond time and always present and available, we only need to reach out to find Him. Feel free to share a single practice or several of them that you find especially helpful.
Would you share your experiences of G-d?
Published in Religion & Philosophy
Actually, I meant to say, but forgot to add: Jesus came and was cut off when God said He would, at the end of the 69th week of Daniel, or 483 years from the time of “the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” and changed the whole world for the better.
Yep.
By the way, I really do like your “Why do people think empiricism and religion are not the same thing?” Concise.
Well, I’m not exactly the first. William James was on this long before I came along.
Concise and entirely useless. There are many testimonies of people in most every religion saying their prophet did this miracle. Sikhs talk about Guru Nanak turning evil men into pigs like Buddhists talk about a Cobra protecting Buddha from rain like Christians talk about the resurrection.
It has been documented time and time again that eye-witness accounts get things wrong.
Saint Augustine has utterly failed to explain why the Christian accounts of miracles are more empirical than the Buddhist or Sikh accounts of miracles.
I accept that Jesus lived and that Socrates lived because humanity isn’t coordinated enough to organize a conspiracy over hundreds of years.
Why is are the testaments of Christ’s miracles anymore believable than the testaments of Buddha’s Mom being surrounded by bowing animals while she was pregnant with Buddha? Or any other miracle for that matter.
They’re not more empirical. They’re just more accurate. I have explained it. Do you need me to give you the link again?
You are ignoring the facts. More than 300 years before Christ’s coming, and crucifixion, the Book of Daniel was translated into Greek and this is well-known. The Date of Artaxerxes’ decree is well-known. Jesus not only came at the right year, he was cut off as prophesied. And His teachings and His followers did change the world for the better. No religion in history compares to these facts. The Jews are the only ethnic group ever to remain whole after such a long diaspora, and this is because they have God’s special standing. (And they have frequently been the special target of satan for quite a long time. Even in modern times. And by God they are still standing.)
Let each person make up his own mind. But these are the facts.
Don’t bother. I don’t trust your empiricism.
I know not of the Book of Daniel but I know a little of Jewish history. They do seem unique. Thomas Sowell is correct that there have been many badly treated middle-men minorities but the Jews were just as hated when they were poor. A reality that Thomas Sowell doesn’t account for. That the Jews are such an odd and unique ethnic group is a fairly good argument for both Judaism and Christianity.
As for the book of Daniel, wasn’t there about five different books saying different things and the book that happened to be most accurate was adopted? Nostradamus is notable for saying a ton of vague stuff and the human mind focuses on the stuff he may have gotten right.
Has there any been any historian whose spent a lifetime sincerely studying prophecies of various other religions and did a compare and contrast? Maybe there is more evidence for Zoroastrianism? I haven’t gone through the evidence.
Christians who say that the evidence supports Christianity already believe in Christianity for reasons not based on evidence. It’s all confirmation bias as for as I can tell.
No, the Septuagint was copied and translated into Greek more than 300 years before Christ.
Very good.
Never heard of that myself.
I don’t think I ever did. But, hypothetically, who cares? That’s an ad hominem fallacy. We still need to look at the evidence.
Let me be clearer. The book of Daniel was copied and many of the prophecies seem quite true to what happened based on other accounts.
Couldn’t there have been other books of prophecies that never happened that were discarded in the favor of the one that works? Selection bias is always problem in everything humanity does after all.
Sure, there could have been. There could have been a surprisingly effective ancient conspiracy to eliminate the other textual traditions. It could be that this text was copied by devout believers because it was the only one that turned out to be accurate centuries later. It could be that unlike all the other texts that contained mistakes and were preserved anyway over the centuries, these were erased by the conspiracy.
Sure, there could have been. And it could be that Joe Biden is an alien lizard. But why indulge in these idle speculations? There’s no evidence for these things. The evidence we do have is right in front of us.
Sure, there could have been. That’s how empirical, inductive evidence works. There’s always a theoretical possibility of some alternative explanation.
The Book of Daniel stands on it’s own. I predates the Messianic [fulfillment of] prophecy of Christ’s coming and sacrifice by centuries, and was translated at a known time, centuries beforehand. And it was accepted as Scripture centuries before the fulfillment.
This if anything backs up God’s statement that He tells you what He’s going to do before He does it so that when He acts and does it, you don’t say My idol did that, or We all knew that was going to happen. If you want to discount it, that’s your prerogative. But if you believe in history, and have an open mind, this is pretty much as strong as any secular evidence gets.
By any chance are you talking about the apocryphal/deuterocanonical bits of the book of Danie?
I knew there was a book of Daniel. That’s it.
Ok, so I think both Flicker and I have never heard of “five different books” accompanying Daniel, one of which was adopted as canonical.
What really does exist is some extra writings that were attached to Daniel in some of the old manuscripts. These are accepted as part of the Bible by the Catholics or by some of the Eastern Orthodox denominations. (I think.)
But there’s never been any controversy about the canonicity of the 12 chapters of Daniel, or any competition I’ve ever heard of for them.
For what it’s worth, the first “Old Testament” that I received when becoming a Christian was a Hebrew Holy Scriptures. It contained the Book of Daniel. It was Jewish canon. It was not a version cherry-picked to support the Christian claim of the date of the Messiah’s coming. It conformed to the Septuagint, which has been scrupulously recopied over the millennia.
It was Our Lady of Lourdes High School in Poughkeepsie. Brother Simeon Gerald, a saintly French Canadian tough wiry ex-hockey player who consorted with the homeless and collected stamps for the missions. He said a prayer at the beginning of every class, and told us to pray the Rosary, wear the scapular and trust in the Lord always. I love him still. RIP.
Ah. I just look it up. I was thinking of Chaminade High School of Mineola, NY on Long Island. My mother’s cousin was a Marist priest. He didn’t teach there but he retired there. I guess they had some sort of religious living quarters. One of the nicest men I have ever known. We spent a lovely afternoon visiting him once and then out there for his funeral a few years ago. He lived to 92 if I remember correctly.
Why insist that they be more empirical? What constitutes this empiricality scale upon which you rely? Got a meter for that measurement, do you?
No. My complaint is that Christians say that their miracles are true because people said so a thousand years ago. Every other religion makes similar claims of miracles. It’s very hard to figure out what is true if everything has conflicted reports.
Flicker’s argument that the book of Daniel provides the most empirical argument for Christianity is interesting. I’ve never heard that argument before so I can’t judge it.
What conflicting reports?
Do you stop trusting human testimony after a certain amount of time has gone by?
I don’t trust my aging memory, but you might want to read about the process of canonization. I believe proof of two miracles that can be attributed to the person being canonized is required and that there is a “Devil’s Advocate” there to dispute the accounts. Anyone who has been canonized recently and who lived in the last century would have recent miracles on the record.
I experience G-d in many of my thoughts, especially during prayer. G-d is the “still, small voice” in my head.
I experience G-d every day, in divine kisses found in events big and small. “Coincidence is G-d’s way of Keeping His Anonymity.”
I experience G-d in human love and kindness.
I experience G-d in my marriage, each and every day. Since I believe that our marriages are the archetypes for our relationship with our Creator, the more beautiful and rewarding my marriage is, the more I feel G-d in my life, directly and indirectly.
And I have no problem whatsoever with people from other faiths also experiencing G-d. The Torah emphasizes that G-d is available to all people.
My skepticism increases.
You mean the probability that a report is accurate decreases as the age of the report increases, all else being equal? Well, sure–whoever said otherwise?
Why not answer the questions?
I don’t trust human testimony absolutely. Only a fool or a person of faith would. Human testimony in legal proceedings is weighed against other human testimonies.
Why don’t you trust the human testimonies that Guru Nanak turned wicked men into pigs or that Buddha had telekinesis or all the other human testimonies of non-Christian miracles?
No person of faith I’ve ever met does either.
And you’re still not answering the question.
You need me to answer again? Last time I offered to, you said no.
Well, in any case, my short overview of a good chunk of the answer is here.
The Lord is my companion. There is not a lot of back-and-forth conversation. I don’t hear Him speak. But I often see Him working in the world around me through people and events. It’s amazing how often the right thing comes at the right time.
I experience God in awe and wonder. I experience Him through inspiration. Sometimes I know things without understanding how I know. Sometimes I have the honor of being the one He is working through to help someone else, which I realize only in hindsight.
The Lord is a personal being. Faith is a personal relationship. As with any relationship, it’s likely to begin from shared interests and values. If one practices Judeo-Christian virtues, that’s an invitation of sorts. Gratitude (to all), a preference for joy rather than cynicism, and charity (face-to-face, personal charity) are attractive to good people. They are also attractive to the Lord because those virtues are fruits of His own nature.