Religion is a Conversation between God and Me

April 4, 2018 Open Religion No Comments

In the course of time, many have been killed for daring to say so. Many of these have found it worthwhile nevertheless.

God and me ― an introduction

For the sake of this text at least, we can take a very broad view on the notion of ‘God’. It can be the one (or many) of any specific religion. It can be an abstract thought, a force of nature or a personal concoction. Anything goes. Otherwise this text has no meaning whatsoever to you, dear reader.

And the notion of ‘me’? Well, we need to take a broad view on that also. Not in the sense that it can be anything, but that it’s about ‘me’-totally: in all my conscious mental processing and my non-conscious mental processing.

Are you ready?

Religion is a conversation.

I talk to Him. He talks to me. I can be alone or with many people. If words are involved, they tend to be poetic. In many cases, they’re not needed. Animals don’t talk, yet converse. People, even while talking, converse also in many other ways. That’s okay. Why would He need words anyway? So, when I don’t need them, everything’s perfect.

But conversation there is!

Which means more – as things frequently do – than may be obvious at first sight. The main deeper meaning to me:

There is no religion without conversation.

This is probably even more to the core of the killing I already mentioned. ‘No religion without conversation’ puts responsibility right into the heart of the ones who converse.

God? No problem.

Me? Wow!

If I do not converse with God, there is no religion.

I can converse with God all the time, so there can always be religion.

It’s directly between God and me. Consequence:

no need for any priest in-between.

No pope in-between. No imam. No guru. No shaman. No-one.

No book in-between. No building. No sermon. No fairytales, nor any other tales. No-thing.

No situations in-between. No mores. No traditions. No cutting. No shoe. No veil. Not any kind of clothing.


Thus, also no means of keeping people under any authority’s iron fist. The ‘conversation’ from the title takes away all iron power from any religious authority.

Authority needs to find something else. I suggest: Open Leadership. Of course, this isn’t as easy as just ramming along. It demands a lot of work, insight, humility…

Can the title’s conversation be called ‘mysticism’?

Sure: a very normal mysticism of every normal day.

Of course, people may need support,

especially when in Divine conversation. For instance, doesn’t the Catholic bible say that “thou shall not look God in the face and live”?

A fist, however, is no support. Unfortunately, when people needed it most, many ‘religious authorities’ have in the course of time delivered an unfortunate abuse.

What can I say? I guess they don’t know what they’re doing.

This should stop, not simply for the sake of ‘getting rid of religion’ but precisely for the sake of the conversation that lies at the core of true religion. As said: no religion without it. Moreover, people cannot be enforced in this. It can only ‘grow from deep inside’. If a priest, imam, brother, parent… or even oneself tries to enforce someone in anything towards this conversation, he is doing the opposite.

That’s what I would call ‘sacrilegious’. It’s completely anti-religious.

One example: enforcing any girl (or boy) to wear a veil ‘for God’s sake’.

This does not mean they should not weir a veil. Also, it doesn’t mean they should. It does mean that it’s beside the godly issue. If it doesn’t emerge from deeply within that boy himself (or girl), there is no true conversation and no religion.

I may have felt this once. Gone was God.

So tell me: how can an emergence ever happen under a fist of coercion? I don’t see that at all.

In one conversation, I asked ‘God’ about it. No answer, of course ― as usual with senseless questions.

I totally agree.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

74. What’s in a book?

Believing in the bible, is not the same as believing in God. It’s believing in the ones who say the bible comes directly from God. Then the question is: why should anyone believe those guys? Because they have good marketing support? Because they have pointed ears? Because they believe in other guys who believe in Read the full article…

Symbols and Signs

A sign is horizontal. A symbol is vertical. There is a lot of confusion about this. A traffic light is a sign. If the light is red, you know what that sign-ifies. A sign is always simple: A points to B. A à B In the mind, A is the mental concept that we can Read the full article…

Symbolism and Placebo

These two domains have lots in common. Rationality cuts through both, but in essentially different ways. Power to the people As a matter of fact, the ‘power’ of a symbol doesn’t lie in the physical symbol itself, just as the ‘power’ of a placebo doesn’t lie in the placebo itself. It lies in the person Read the full article…

Translate »