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 who have been killed for it, have found it worthwhile nevertheless.

God and me

We can take, for the sake of this text at least, 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.

Nothing.

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

An iron fist, however, is no support at all. Meaning: when people need it maybe most in their entire lives, many ‘religious authorities’ have in the course of time delivered an unfortunate abuse instead.

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. It doesn’t mean they should. It does mean that it’s completely 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 only once in my life. Gone was God.

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

In conversation, I’ve asked ‘God’ about it. No answer, as usual with senseless questions.

I totally agree.

 

Please follow and like us:
LinkedIn
Facebook
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
RSS
Follow by Email
SHARE

Related Posts

Is ‘Open Religion’ the Future?

In a world replete with separate religions, that what overlaps-in-depth may show a way towards Open Religion. Being an adherent of one specific religion at the principled exclusion of others, is definitely not open. ‘Inter-religious dialogue’ is in many cases just a kindly disguised way to (non-)accept each other for some specific common goal. We Read the full article…

Spirituality

In all times, spirituality has been about how people consciously deal with their own non-conscious mind. Has the endeavor been worthwhile and may it lead to a new dawn? Spirit = internal: the way of using one’s mind without immediate crystallizations of ‘thinking’ into ‘thoughts’ – thus: what happens in the mind before conceptualization. Scientifically, Read the full article…

AURELIS and ‘Esotericism’

If it’s your intention to be open all the way, then you have to be open to all sides and not closed to some specific one. Unless it would be the of being-closed itself. This certainly is important when it’s not easy, when people tend to misunderstand, when people interpret their attachment to certain ideas Read the full article…