Is God a Being or an Experience?

[Hijabihippie]

"God is a verb".
--Spider & Jeanne Robinson

 

[dogsgod]

Is god a being or an experience? I was reading a Buddhist author the other night. He asserted god was an experience, rather than a being. He went on to say people are mistaken to ascribe certain qualities to god, such as permanence and substance. Do you agree with the author? Why or why not?

Are those the only options?

 

[sandandfoam]

Is god a being or an experience? I was reading a Buddhist author the other night. He asserted god was an experience, rather than a being. He went on to say people are mistaken to ascribe certain qualities to god, such as permanence and substance. Do you agree with the author? Why or why not?

I agree with your Buddhist author.
I think God is an experience.
Why? Perhaps because the idea of nature as theophany grabs me. Today a storm passed through here. I walked outside, buffetted by the gale and struck by the dark clouds skitting across the sky. Booming sea and whipped foam. Awesome. That, to me, was an experience not a being.

I try to sit every day. My books tell me that to sit in zazen is all. I suspect they're right. If they are - experience is it.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

What about Christians who believe in the concept of Immanuel which could literally mean God with us or even God within us? That could be more construed as being more of an experience than a being.

 

[Charity]

Is god a being or an experience? I was reading a Buddhist author the other night. He asserted god was an experience, rather than a being. He went on to say people are mistaken to ascribe certain qualities to god, such as permanence and substance. Do you agree with the author? Why or why not?

Both

 

[EverChanging]

I also understand God as an "experience." Certainly other words could be used to describe it, but the point is that there are no words, which is why the vague word "God" is used by some in a poetic sense.

It's poetry. Poetry is not meant to be rationalized and explicitly defined and differentiated from other words. It misses the point of a poetic usage.

 

[EverChanging]

But I'm saying, why not keep "god" referring to a being? Not "the state of being" or "an experience of being", etc. We have words for those already.

This is only from a Western point of view and actually quite a literal one at that. Eastern religions do not always describe God as a being, nor did many of the mystics of the Abrahamic faiths.

It's poetry that doesn't convey precise information.

Much of my own poetry doesn't convey precise information. That doesn't mean it isn't poetry. It means it's not a text book of facts. Poetry often goes beyond the rational meanings of words to convey something beyond words. What's so wrong with that? Do we really need to be such rational creatures that we can no longer enjoy metaphor, art, poetry, myth, or ritual?

A lot of new age or syncretist religious concepts seem to fall prey to this issue wherein they become so vague as to the point of not actually conveying any information or usefulness.

I utilize prayers and rituals and various forms of meditation without ever needing to define deity as a being or thing, and I find this useful for introspection, peace, calm, and an outlet for my emotions and sometimes for insight and altering my state of consciousness. So did the mystics of the world religions, including mystics in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. I recommend A History of God by Karen Armstrong.

 

[Storm]

Is god a being or an experience?

Experience is all we can truly know of God. Most folks interpret that experience as a being. Whether that interpretation is right or wrong, the experience remains.

I was reading a Buddhist author the other night. He asserted god was an experience, rather than a being. He went on to say people are mistaken to ascribe certain qualities to god, such as permanence and substance. Do you agree with the author? Why or why not?

He has a point, but I don't think we can help it.

One of the things that makes us human is that we want to know. Science, philosophy, religion... it all stems from that driving curiosity. This is a good thing.

 

[Penumbra]

Is god a being or an experience? I was reading a Buddhist author the other night. He asserted god was an experience, rather than a being. He went on to say people are mistaken to ascribe certain qualities to god, such as permanence and substance. Do you agree with the author? Why or why not?

Besides, the author basically refuted one unsubstantiated concept with a second unsubstantiated concept. He asserts that people are mistaken to ascribe things like permanence and substance to god, but another commenter would be justified to come along and suggest that he is mistaken by ascribing the concept of an experience to god.

I agree with your Buddhist author.
I think God is an experience.
Why? Perhaps because the idea of nature as theophany grabs me. Today a storm passed through here. I walked outside, buffetted by the gale and struck by the dark clouds skitting across the sky. Booming sea and whipped foam. Awesome. That, to me, was an experience not a being.

I try to sit every day. My books tell me that to sit in zazen is all. I suspect they're right. If they are - experience is it.

Of course it was an experience. It's a storm, a gale, a sea, etc. It's an example of a being (you) having an experience (storm, gale, sea, etc.).

Why put god into it? What's wrong with calling it what it was: a person having an enjoyable experience?

 

[EverChanging]

Why put god into it? What's wrong with calling it what it was: a person having an enjoyable experience?

I'd say because those words aren't adequate, either. No words are adequate. That's the point of much of poetry. Some people because the word "God" is very familiar to them and the traditions they grew up with, still ascribe a sense of mystery or ineffability to the word, and so the word gets used in a poetic sense. This is not foreign to the monotheistic religions, especially to many ancient (and also modern) mystics and saints, as noted in A History of God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Experience is all we can truly know of God. Most folks interpret that experience as a being. Whether that interpretation is right or wrong, the experience remains.

Experience is all we can truly know of anything. Our perceptions and experiences are our only way of obtaining knowledge about the world around us. Does this mean that we can re-define everything as an "experience"?

Another thought: I think that calling God an "experience" shifts the focus in a self-centred way. A being is something that does not necessarily rely on the perceiver in any way for its existence or attributes. An experience is something that does not exist apart from the perceiver - it's defined in terms of him.

IOW, if God is an "experience" then it's the perceiver who's sovereign, not God.

Personally, even if I were to believe in God, I'd be very uncomfortable in defining God solely in terms of myself.

 

[Storm]

Experience is all we can truly know of anything. Our perceptions and experiences are our only way of obtaining knowledge about the world around us. Does this mean that we can re-define everything as an "experience"?

Another thought: I think that calling God an "experience" shifts the focus in a self-centred way. A being is something that does not necessarily rely on the perceiver in any way for its existence or attributes. An experience is something that does not exist apart from the perceiver - it's defined in terms of him.

IOW, if God is an "experience" then it's the perceiver who's sovereign, not God.

Personally, even if I were to believe in God, I'd be very uncomfortable in defining God solely in terms of myself.

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what you're trying to say. Rephrase, please?

 

[Midnight Pete]

Is god a being or an experience? I was reading a Buddhist author the other night. He asserted god was an experience, rather than a being. He went on to say people are mistaken to ascribe certain qualities to god, such as permanence and substance. Do you agree with the author? Why or why not?

The Buddhist author was stating a Buddhist point of view. To the Buddhist, God is more like Nirvana, an experience rather than an entity. But why can't God be both? After all, Christians talk about "experiencing God" all the time. It is through the Holy Spirit that we experience God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what you're trying to say. Rephrase, please?

"I experience God" implies that God may be independent of me.

"God is my experience" implies that God is dependent on me.

 

[Storm]

"I experience God" implies that God may be independent of me.

"God is my experience" implies that God is dependent on me.

Ah, thanks. Neither is what I was really getting at.

Basically, there is a category of human experience commonly labelled "God," which is commonly interpreted as communion with a being. We have no way of knowing whether that interpretation is correct. What's more, I don't think it matters in the end.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ah, thanks. Neither is what I was really getting at.

Basically, there is a category of human experience commonly labelled "God," which is commonly interpreted as communion with a being. We have no way of knowing whether that interpretation is correct. What's more, I don't think it matters in the end.

I don't think that's the label for the experience at all. "God" is the label for the attributed source of the experience.

 

[Penumbra]

I don't think that's the label for the experience at all. "God" is the label for the attributed source of the experience.

Agreed.

 

[Sunstone]

I think the Buddhist was using god as a label for the experience, not the source of the experience. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Storm]

I don't think that's the label for the experience at all. "God" is the label for the attributed source of the experience.

I'll grant that the line is blurry.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the Buddhist was using god as a label for the experience, not the source of the experience. But that's just my opinion.

I get that impression from your OP. But wasn't he suggesting that point of view as a contrast to the mainstream position?