People are designed to relate in the richest possible terms to the divine — to God, The Universal Mind, The Big Picture, The Greater Good, the Spirit in the Sky, etc. However any person (and this includes you, atheists) might define and understand The Greatest and Largest Possible Concept and/or Context, the quality of their life will be determined by their relationship to it.
The more we make our lives about ourselves, the more unhappy we become. That’s the law of human life, and none of us gets to break it.
It’s all about our relationship to Mr. Big. (Or Ms. Big, of course. Or Gender Neutral Big. Or … whatever.)
Unfortunately, we’re also designed to survive — which in large part, and certainly often in an immediate sense, means being all about ourselves.
And there in a nutshell is the whole of the human dilemma: We are ever torn between selfishness and altruism, greed and benevolence, taking and giving, indulgence and balance, good and bad, darkness and light — and on and on and on.
Torn between opposites. That’s who we are.
Well, for those times when you’re in the mood for a little Divine Interaction, may I suggest the following four E-Z things to do? They’re simple, but they work, and always have. In describing them I will use the ultra-generic term “God,” so that at the very least I don’t have to sprain my fingers typing. To put on the whole matter a more … teleological (“the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world,” says my online “American Heritage” dictionary) emphasis, let me also say that I personally believe that God is constantly and forever waiting for everyone and anyone to simply ask how they can deepen their personal relationship with him. God has a lot of answers, but for that particular question, he really has an answer. And if you sincerely and deeply ask God what you should do in order to enrich your relationship with him, what you are certain to in one way or another very clearly hear him communicating back to you is that you would do very well indeed to begin incorporating into your daily life the following four things:
1. Listening to God
2. Reflecting upon God
3. Being humble before God
4. Trusting God
Listening to God. Listening to God doesn’t mean you have to climb to the top of a mountain and lose yourself in prayerful bliss, or kneel in place of worship for six hours straight, or anything like that. It only means that every once in a while — while you’re cooking, cleaning, standing in line at the bank, walking your dog, whatever — you should simply try to open yourself up to listening to the God (which we Christians know as the Holy Spirit) within you. God is never not talking to you. Just give a listen once (or twice, or thrice) in a while. Trust that you will be extremely interested in everything God has to say to you. The more you listen to God, the more you’ll want to listen to what is, after all, a voice that’s as close to you — and is as much about you — as any can possibly be.
Reflecting upon God. This is about the easiest thing in the world to do. God is everywhere manifested: in all nature; in all people; in all the shapes, forms, colors, textures. God exists in every moment of your perceived experience. Or just look into the depths of your own self: There he is! Reflect upon him/her/it. Use the fact of the divine, immediate reality of God to lift you into the kind of grand, passive contemplation that is, after all, one of richest, sweetest experiences available to anyone.
Being humble before God. You don’t know jack crap, and will be dead before you know it. Be with that for a while. Appreciate it. Let it grow within you. Let it overwhelm you. Let it drop you to your knees.
Trusting God. In those three simple words lie the key to best, richest, most rewarding life possible. It’s hard to elaborate on so perfect a phrase. Trust in God. Do it. Every once in a while — especially if you know that it’s been a while — stop whatever you’re doing, and hold in your mind and heart the fact that the entirely of everything you ever worry about is in the hands of God, and that everything about you and your world that he does, he does so that ultimately you will know the peace of his abiding presence. It has never been any different, and never will be: God loves you, and you can trust him. Stop, sometimes, to relax into that amazing truth, and to rejoice around it. (Note: the more abstract your notion of God/The Divine/The Big Truth, the more difficult it will be for you to do this one.)
***************************************************************************************************************
Fan me, baby
Posted by rbjennings on March 25, 2010 at 6:08 am
This is excellent! We blog very similarly. I agree that relationship with what I call The Holy or The Sacred (for me it is Jesus) is our purpose in life and that living outside that relationship we die spiritually and psychically. “God is never NOT talking to you”. I love this. He/she is always there, always reaching out; we just need to be conscious of that fact. Be aware. Thank you for your insights. Very valuable information. I’ve devised a three-step growth process that I use to maintain my Conscious Christianity called Sounding the Soul. If you’re interested please visit http://rbjennings.wordpress.com. In the words of CA’s gov: I’ll be back! Blessings upon you.
RBJ
Posted by John Shore on March 25, 2010 at 6:25 am
Thanks, RB. (And you do have what looks like a great blog.) It’s nice to meet you.
Posted by etaya on March 25, 2010 at 6:30 am
Very nice John. I am glad that you made clear your stance on God. I hope that all who read this post are reminded just how easy it really is to have a relationship with Him. It doesn’t require anything more than taking the time to be with Him. Your comments on trusting Him also are very important. I know that in my life, it seems that a lot is going wrong right now, but the more I let Him carry those burdens and rejoice in the many blessings that He has given to me, I am a much more peaceful and loving person in thought, word, and deed.
Thanks again for your great writings. I look forward to reading more. God bless you.
Posted by Mike (FVThinker) Burns on March 25, 2010 at 8:14 am
Blaise Pascal (of ‘Wager’ fame) had this to say about the matter:
Posted by John Shore on March 25, 2010 at 8:26 am
Mike: As usual, you select only what you care to use, and ignore the rest. The above quote is the first half of an argument Pascal was making FOR faith, not against it. The second half of that quote, which you lifted from the Wikipedia page on Pascal, is this:
Perhaps, further up the Wiki page, you didn’t notice this other quote of Pascal’s:
Posted by Tracy on March 25, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Owned!
Posted by John Shore on March 25, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Mike’s a vacation compared to what I’m dealing with in the comments section of this same post over on “The Huffington Post.” Here, for instance, are a few of the comments I’ve had to leave in response to comments others have left:
“If being happy is a goal of yours, I might suggest you not spend too much time reading and arguing with bloggers and blog posts to which you fundamentally take exception — but, again, your business.”
“It’s a blog post, not a doctoral dissertation. I was comfortable beginning this post as I did because I’m comfortable assuming that it’s self-evident that the surest, most direct path toward a miserable life is to as much as possible make yourself the most important thing in your life. ‘Tis better to give than to receive, and all that. But please, feel free to disagree with my assumption. I’m going to choose not to go back and forth with you anymore about — but, again, argue away.”
“Okay, I’ll say it again: I was comfortable stating my opening observation in the manner I did because I believe the truth of it is self-evident. If you disagree—if you’d like to take exception to my stating as an absolute what you believe to be something less definite–then have some class, and show us your brains by articulating your argument in such a way as to prove that you’re capable of contributing to a conversation such as this anything besides caustic, immature bile. It’s a given that when you write about God or religion—especially in a form as necessarily limited as a blog post—people are going to take exception to, and have legitimate arguments against, one or another aspects of what you write. I’m not defensive about what I write. But surely, as a response to it, you can do better than a drive-by accusation that I’m purposefully dodging the truth because I’m just too feeble-minded, or cowardly, to address it. For your sake, I hope you can.”
I almost (stress: almost) miss ol’ Thinker Burns.
Posted by Jeannie on March 25, 2010 at 8:33 am
Very simple, yet profound. A great way to get my mindset right this morning. Thanks, John.
Posted by mike burns on March 25, 2010 at 9:52 am
You got me John. Of course everyone knows that Pascal was arguing FOR faith; but few are aware of the actual content…and how his argument fails…and objectively so. His method works for ANY belief system. Belief in Wicca, Scientology, Islam, Christianity is all acheivable through repetition and the dulling of one’s proud intellect. Pascal makes no distinction and merely suggests that, if you want to believe in something…anything, you can trick yourself into doing so.
Posted by John Shore on March 25, 2010 at 9:55 am
Wrong again, Mike. Clearly, you don’t know Pascal’s work at all. He was a Christian, as anyone who’s serious about him becomes pretty quickly aware. Maybe it’d be better if you just tried to make your own points.
Posted by mike burns on March 25, 2010 at 10:04 am
Of course I know Pascal was a Christian, but that is immaterial. My ‘own’ point is that he does not suggest demonstrating any truth or validity, rather the dulling of intellect.
Posted by John Shore on March 25, 2010 at 10:06 am
You need to stop, Mike. The only point you’re making is that you don’t know Pascal from Mickey Mouse. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Posted by Janelle on March 25, 2010 at 10:29 am
So true and beautifully worded, John. I have come to wonder if being humbled actually might be essential to survival, that this is where the dilemma you speak of makes it’s peace. Many people, Christian and other, have described the life-changing experience of illness or some other devastation which first humbled, and then saved them.
Posted by WKen on March 25, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Wait … Pascal isn’t Mickey Mouse?
Are you sure?
Have you ever seen them together?
Posted by John Shore on March 25, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Well, “Pascal” spelled backwards is “lacsap,” which, spelled sideways, is “lapsac,” which I believe is something of which Goofy had possession. So, no.
Posted by ric booth on March 25, 2010 at 5:43 pm
I think if Google and Wiki went down at the same time for say like 4 hours one day… the number of intelligent blog post comments would plunge to dangerously low levels.
Oh wait, you know what would be funnier yet? A global global virus that disables the cut-n-paste feature on everyone’s computer. That would be a great day.
Posted by John Shore on March 25, 2010 at 5:56 pm
I have a weird personality kink, in that I HATE pretentiousness. I mean, I know everyone does, but I have kind of an … abnormally hostile reaction to it. It’s why I have so little patience with comments that, like Mike’s, are grounded in the most transparent kind of intellectual pretentiousness. I’ve got maybe five regular or semi-regular commentators whose comments constantly drip with intellectual or (most often) spiritual pretentiousness, and it drives me absolutely nuts. I almost always immediately move them to “must moderate before they can post” status.
And it’s so crazy. Like, with Mike. He uses a quote from Pascal that he’s sloppy enough to claim shows Pascal arguing against believing in God. Then, when he learns that Pascal was a Christian, he stamps his foot and claims that fact immaterial, of all things.
And all the while claiming that the high road of the strictly logical belongs to him.
Insane.
But five or six such commentators is nothing. All those sorts of people always seem, in the main, to drift away. I’m never sad to see them go, of course.
Posted by John Shore on March 25, 2010 at 6:24 pm
(And, as long as I’m raving: What really pisses me off about (in this case) Mike is the sheer, unadulterated RUDENESS of it. I spent a bare minimum of 15 hours writing this thing—thinking of the four things, and all. I wrote it as a way of communicating directly with my fellow believers—while taking care to exclude as few people as possible from the gist of its message. And this clown thinks he’s going to spend twenty-five seconds looking up something on Wikipedia that he doesn’t even almost understand, and then come drop it like a turd on my blog, drive away, and pat himself on the back for how summarily he destroyed the integrity of the work I did, the value of what I’ve communicated? I. Don’t. Think. So. Thanks for listening to me rave.)
Posted by ric booth on March 26, 2010 at 4:42 am
Very good, John.
How does that make you feel?
haha. I hear you.
Posted by John Shore on March 26, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Notice you haven’t seen him here since?
B.L.O.C.K.E.D.
It’s a weird thing for me, over on Huffington. I have no control of the moderation of the comments, whether they’re from me or anyone else. (Which I understand, of course. I’m just not used to it, at all.)
Posted by ~Julia~ on March 25, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Very nice, John.
Posted by Stephanie on March 26, 2010 at 6:05 am
Amen John. Nicely and Simply stated.
If we could constantly remember this line……
“You don’t know jack crap, and will be dead before you know it. Be with that for a while. Appreciate it. Let it grow within you. Let it overwhelm you. Let it drop you to your knees.”
Posted by wken on March 26, 2010 at 6:37 am
To the actual point of the post … well done.
I think that a lot of people forget about listening to God. I saw a short film once called “Coffee With Jesus,” in which a guy is meeting with Jesus. The moment they sit down, the guy starts rattling off his requests, his ideas, what’s going on, etc.. Jesus keeps trying to get a word in, but the guy just talks over him.
I wonder how often that’s me.
Not counting the fact that I don’t like coffee, that is.
Great post.
Posted by Claudia S on March 26, 2010 at 9:35 am
I totally agree with your point John, and I sincerely hope I’m not one of the annoyingly pretentious people who you can’t stand. It would certainly never be my intention.
I think it was very decent of you to say “God, The Universal Mind, The Big Picture…”, etc. It gives me hope to see an acknowledgement of the many, many different ways people have of seeing and identifying with the Holy. Because I really do believe it’s out there, waiting, and that anyone can connect to it. There are more stories than can even be counted of people who looked outside of themselves and called out, “Is there anyone/anything out there?” (so to speak), and who received a resounding answer. These are my favourite stories. I figure if the Holy (by which I mean each person’s specific conception of the Ultimate ground of being) IS NOT out there to be found by those who seek it, then what is the point of us being human the way we are? Because the search for ultimate meaning is pretty much built in, for most people, if not all.
So ask, and ask sincerely, and you never you what you’ll find. And that holds true for everyone, doesn’t it? Christians and non-Christians alike.
Food for thought as usual, John, and an uplifting topic.
Posted by Claudia S on March 26, 2010 at 9:38 am
Oh, and now I’m so ashamed! My bad on the typo above: the last paragraph should read “… and you never KNOW what you’ll find.” So sorry.
Posted by Richard Lubbers on March 29, 2010 at 5:29 am
Thank you, John, for a well-written blog.
Driving through the Dallas area a few weeks ago, I saw a billboard that asked, “Want More of God?” Of course it was an advertise ment attempting to draw people to a church where they could get more of God (and the church could get more of their money). I was repulsed! I was repilsed because getting more of God is isn’t done through a place or another person; it is through the very personal relationship between God and every individual that desires that relationship.
I read most of your blogs, John, and love the tongue-in-cheek writings. But when you’re simple like this, it is also very “Right On!”
Keep tickling our funny bones, and touching our hearts. Bro!
Posted by Acirfa on April 18, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Thank you for such an inspiring article, I feel the hunger deep within to deepen my relationship with God daily.
Posted by Tommy Jay on May 6, 2010 at 1:40 pm
The Mister Burns whom I see here should have included another of Pascal’s quotes:
“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.”
Posted by John Shore on May 6, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Tommy: You seem like a smart guy. Surely you have something better to do than lob cheap shots at people who see the world in a paradigmatically different way than you?
Posted by Tommy Jay on May 6, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Well it was kind of a cheap shot that your Mister Burns interjected Pascal initially. You, however, engaged him and [I think] improperly represented Pascal. To broaden that part of the discussion; I think it was useful for you to know more of the body of Pascals thoughts on religion. Pascal was no Aquinas-like apologist. I would side with Burns that Pascal’s Wager, when put in context, loses most of its persuasive power.
I would side with you, though, that lobbing it in where Burns did could be considered a cheap shot. I will be careful.
Regards,
TJ
Posted by John Shore on May 6, 2010 at 8:01 pm
I know Pascal’s work; I did a lot of work about him in college.
But I meant what I asked you. I’ve been doing this blog for over three years. About every four months someone pretty exactly like you comes through: an atheist who starts out sounding kind and rational (and, for the record, I’m not doubting that you’re either), and over the course of the subsequent two or so weeks (and always with little or no input from me) becomes increasingly combative—until finally they’re just clearly here looking to fight. It’s a pattern that’s as predictable as the sun crossing the sky; it’s almost astonishing how dependable it is. From your first comment I could have predicted to the day when you would leave a comment as sharp, condemning, and intellectually condescending as your Pascal quote. And I always wonder: Why would you take the time? You know I’m a Christian. You have no idea what KIND of Christian I am—and (assuming you’re typical) don’t much care: to you, I would wager, a Christian’s a Christian a Christian.
Anyway, I always wonder why in the world someone like you would even hang around a blog like this. When you leave a quote from a Famous Thinker about how evil religious people are, what are you you hoping to gain from that? Do you simply enjoy insulting people? Do you hope to start an argument that you’re confident you can win? Do you enjoy the attention that you get when you rile people up by insulting and denigrating them? Is your TV broken, your kitchen clean, your dog walked? Do you simply have nothing else to do? Because if you can think of anything else to do, do yourself a wonderful favor, mate: Go do it.
Posted by Tommy Jay on May 10, 2010 at 6:26 am
Not knowing whether John received my private communique, I thought I would make a couple public statements.
My citing the ‘religious conviction’ quote in no way should be read to connote that I or Pascal says that all religious people are evil. That would be ludicrous. The quote suggests that, if evil is perpetrated, religious conviction in those actions will make things far worse. Most believers and non-believers would recognize that to be true. The corollary might be that greater good can be done if done with religious conviction. I hope I am clear on that matter.
I would not have interjected it had Mr. Shore not [in my opinion] poorly represented just where Blaise Pascal fits into the pantheon of Christian proponents.
As to why I show up here…
Automated Google searches link me to various topics of interest. Mr. Shore wrote something that showed up in one of those searches and I clicked the link. His blog has two nice characteristics: 1) his writing style is amusing and 2) it is not so heavily trafficked that it has 200 comments and 20 conversations underway the first time you visit.
I assume that one maintains a blog to exchange ideas and not simply to reinforce what one already believes…that would be very Fox News-esque. My interests lie in church-state separation and science education and reasoned thought. I am not here to denigrate believers, but I will challenge those that demonstrate poor logic. If that offends you, then you should petition Mr. Shore to block me.
Posted by ric booth on May 10, 2010 at 7:42 am
So, you’re not naive, you are just insensitive. I should not find this offensive?
Posted by Tommy Jay on May 10, 2010 at 8:06 am
What, specifically, did I say that you consider insensitive?
Posted by ric booth on May 10, 2010 at 8:36 am
The Pascal quote, of course (obviously? seriously?)
Posted by Tommy Jay on May 10, 2010 at 9:06 am
I thought it was obvious too, but I didn’t want to speak in generalities. I hoped that I made it clear that I did not bring Pascal to this discussion originally. Moreover; I concur that Mr. Burns introducing it was inappropriate. It was only in the context of the broader discussion of Pascal brought with the participation of Mr. Shore that I interjected.
I found Mr. Shore’s defense of Pascal as a Christian proponent to be lacking some breadth and omitted things (intentionally or otherwise) that demonstrate a far more complex position. Unless one is familiar with the pertinent sciences to which Mr. Pascal contrubuted (very greatly I might add); few know more about him than the barbarically paraphrased ‘wager’ that bears his name.
In the context of a discussion of Pascal’s Wager specifically and his Christian proponency in general; what is wrong with relating his statements?
I don’t think I can be more clear that the ‘religious conviction’ in no way says the religious are innately violent…merely that pairing violence with religious conviction make it less amenable to being defused. I think the majority of believers and non-believers alike would agree that evil is bad, but evil combined with religion is worse.
It would seem that the offense is taken by misinterpretation of what Pascal was saying.
Posted by ric booth on May 10, 2010 at 10:16 am
No, TJ, obviously that is not it. Are you actually not getting it?
A non-believer quoting a believer (out of context as you did) back to a group of believers is arrogant and insensitive, or naive. Communications 101.
Remember back when the Pope quoted Muhammad out of context and the Muslims didn’t take it too well? He and the Vatican attempted your style of defense. It was ridiculous then, too.
Posted by Tommy Jay on May 10, 2010 at 12:14 pm
I am not sure what context you want me to put it in. Yes; Pascal was an apologist. After walking down to the post office a bit ago, I took the time to walk over to the library (I love living in town) and flipped through a book of Pascal’s translated works. The quote offered has no context beyond what I offered and stands alone in his Pensées (thoughts) amongst other miscellaneous thoughts on belief/religion. (#894). At least one other item that I saw seemed to indicate that prophesies led him to believe that the Catholic church was, indeed, the true church. (I am quite open to correction on that bit).
He said it…and it is in fullest textual context available. I am not sure what more I can do.
Posted by ric booth on May 10, 2010 at 2:59 pm
LOL. You know, humility takes a lot less time and effort, Tommy Jay. And it has the additional side effect of earning trust and respect.
Posted by Tommy Jay on May 10, 2010 at 6:33 pm
There are many ways to earn trust and respect to be sure.
Honesty, loyalty, intellect, reliability, compassion, and hard work are but a few. Letting poor arguments go unchallenged is not one of them. …it would be easy though.