experience of god

Now, two comments to add from a forum that I find is useful in the process of *finding words* towards describing the 'experience' of god.

This one about the 'personal' nature of god;

> Date: Thursday, 24 December, 2009, 19:14

> "Well, we as individuals get to
> determine or decide what qualifies as a "god
> experience" other than if we choose to let someone else
> do it for us. That being the case a "god
> experience" becomes whatever we want to identify as
> such and yours may little resemble mine... maybe yours seems
> inauthentic to me maybe mine appears inauthentic to you.
>
> OVER ALL however, (and as a flaming pantheist, a rabid
> intellectual, and a mad skeptic of reason) I have to say
> that I doubt the human capacity to mindfully experience
> 'GOD' or much of it sufficient to make sense out
> of--any more than some hypothetical parasite of a virus host
> could make sense out of a human being."
**************************************************

The mindful, personal interactive factor, looks to me to be a significant one - but no, I dont say that without it, the thing is not 'of god'.

In the way that there are sometimes lost paths, there seems to me to be too much emphasis - on certain aspects of mans 'human-ness', that miss out on the 'human-ness' that is everywhere.

It seems to me that human temperament, human nature, is identified much too much as *just* 'human', when so many of its qualities may equally be seen in a field of hay or a granite cliff, or an ocean, in all the universe, as in human personality.

They are not mindful in exactly the same way, but the the nature of man is intensely interactive, without mindfulness. It just is. *It* interacts constantly. ..but theres constant, intense interaction, all the while, everywhere. (In 'nature' for example, does the bee search for nectar or does the flower entice the bee?).
The person to person 'god' seems clear to me, and is available, accessable to everyone.
I think of an altered, deeper, or intent focus, on that personality, as prayer.

I mean that - My 'own' interactive nature, or something that resembles it closely, is out there, it responds to me as I do to it, all the while.

Next,


This comment I found helpful in clarifying an idea of god that appears to me to be a mistaken concept.

> Date: Friday, 25 December, 2009, 3:12
> I have a friend who says - loudly,
> that she is an atheist. She was born into a Jewish
> family, but bore a stillborn baby and had two miscarriages
> -
> all very disturbing for her. Her experiences told her
> there Is No God... Also, it is not a philosophy for
> her, and though it is clearly a belief, it is
> physical and cellular, from her experiences. Even
> this discussion about God would be more than she could
> manage.

This is about a 'make believe, space filler' god, I think.

This woman's rejected 'god', existed (perhaps by the tradition of family religious practice), at sometime in her life, but *only* as one of the make believe,
god-concepts, that one may describe as 'fillers' or ways to bridge, (perhaps fearful) gaps, in understanding?

'Make believe' often having the limitations of inadequacy in dealing with 'real experiences'.
This particular 'make believe god', was expected, (perhaps even guaranteed by some kind of teaching) to protect women from the misery of miscarriage, despair and loss, failed to do so, and was discarded for ever, never having existed at all, as a real experience.

Isnt this one of the most common of the 'make believe, filler' god concepts?
The metaphysical controller, that is able and willing to intervene in the affairs and lives of men, according to their hopes & needs, and make approved changes, when required to do so?

I dont think its useful to think about any use of the word 'god'
in that context.