I understand that this question is directed toward Christians by the name of the post. I posted my musings on who exactly qualifies as "Christian" in the UU forums. By most conventional definitions, I am by no means Christian, but I've been called "Christopagan," which is a syncretic form of Christianity, so for the purpose of this post I will assume that I qualify as a "Christian," at least loosely.
I am basically an atheist, or more accurately, a materialist (or perhaps physicalist is a more precise term) and do not believe that anything beyond energy and matter exists, but I use various names for the "Divine" in mantras, prayers, and contemplation and find them useful in exploring the non-logical aspect of my human mind (brain?) and have at times experienced communications from them. It is my understanding that these experiences are like my other experiences of "consciousness" (here we go again with that vague term) -- they are subjective. I don't consider my perception of my self any less of an illusion than the perception I've had of spirit beings communicating with me telepathically or in other ways. They are as real as I am, and I am as much of an illusion as they are. Consciousness is still a very sticky issue, but this is my current understanding.
So ultimately, God is, to me, an experience -- no different from my experience of a self, my experience of the color red, my experience of tastes, smells, and emotions. Beyond that personal, subjective experience, it has no reality. However, this may also be true of my self, so I do not consider the experiences any less relevant, even if they are an illusion.
Part of what makes me "Christian" if I use a loose definition of the term (which is true of most Unitarian Universalists who identify as Christian) is that I relate to the Divine as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Mother, Child, and Womb (the latter is in use in some liberal Christian churches, including some Presbytarian parishes.) To me, the Father-Mother is that which draws us into transcendence and births awe, wonder, and love in our hearts -- this can be the universe or anything else serving that function. The Son-Child is this sense of transcendence and wonder present in physical reality -- in people we love, in the stars, anything that embodies that which is both transcendent and yet present in the physical. And the Holy Spirit/Womb is our response, from within us, to the transcendent. This womb within us births love and beauty in our hearts, and yet we, connected to the interdependent web of all existence, are also continually being reborn in the Womb in our connection with the universe beyond us, transcendence -- there is no self. We are birthed in the Womb, and the Womb is within us, giving birth.
I relate to the Divine in other ways as well, which is where the neo-pagan part comes in. I feel it as Brighit, and the Virgin Mary, as Shiva, and other personalities that have come to me over time when I needed their love and guidance. Only one of them had a human form. One was part animal. Another looked like a goddess, but I can't really say which. I don't believe they are spirits or supernatural. I suppose they are just constructions of my brain, like my sense of self. I suppose they are me loving me, guiding me. I wonder if those who experience multiple personalities are experiencing a more extreme version of this? (Although of course alternate personalities are not always kind.)
Part of what I draw from in my conception of the Divine is a concept I learned about from Karen Armstrong. I provide a quote:
By the late medieval period, Pseudo-Dionysius, a fifth- and sixth-century Christian, had become the theologian of method, a thinker highly respected by the likes of Thomas Aquinas. Psuedo-D’s approach to theological discourse was one saturated with humility and the awareness of the limits of both language and the human intellect. Pseudo-D explained that theology should proceed under three steps—a practice, really—of affirmation, negation of that affirmation, and negation of the negation.
First, for example, one asserts a positive attribute about God, one inherited from the tradition: God is perfect. Second, the theologian denies that position: How could one imagine the apotheosis of perfection? Further, how does the word ‘perfect’, limited as it is by human knowledge and language, really speak about that which is beyond words? Therefore, God is not perfect. Third, because it is illogical to assert what God is not (doing so would be to directly place a limitation upon God), one denies the denial: God is neither perfect nor imperfect.
Pseudo-D’s exercise, thus, “leads us to apophasis, the breakdown of speech, which cracks and disintegrates before the absolute unknowability of what we call God.” With an apophatic approach to God, the theologian is guided toward an appreciation of the limits of God-talk, practices humility, and realizes that, when it comes to theological discourse, we really can’t know what we’re talking about. To feign otherwise would be egocentrically idolatrous. Pseudo-D and his medieval contemporaries “believed that God exceeded our thoughts and concepts and could be known only by dedicated practice.”
http://www.religiondispatches.org/a...ef:_karen_armstrong’s_the_case_for_god?page=2
In other words, the "proofs" for God that the Roman Catholic Church embraces today -- God as first mover, etc., were never meant to be logical proofs, according to Karen Armstrong, and indeed, they certainly aren't convincing proofs if that was their intended purpose. Rather, it was a practice of contemplating the Divine: God is Creator. God is not creator. God is not
not the Creator. In other words, the Divine is unknowable. Everything we "know" of the Divine is merely limited subjective experience. To contemplate the Divine is to contemplate the inexpressible -- it is not a logical exercise, nor should it be. To me, God is not a being like any other being, and it cannot be said to even exist. (God exists. God does not exist. God does not
not exist. This is an ancient exercise applied to theology.)
All I know is my experience, and as far as I can tell, my experience is an illusion, my self, and my gods and goddesses. I don't mind. They are as real to me as they need to be.
