One way people define their spirituality, to themselves and others, is via the question: Do you believe in God? If you’re dealing with hard liners that question might even carry a threat. The question is problematic though, it assumes there’s a dichotomy. You either believe, or you don’t. This is the narrow view of religions that trace their roots to Abraham of the Old Testament; Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
For these religions there is one God and one God only. If you don’t believe in “him” you’re an unbeliever. Believers have slaughtered millions of these unbelievers for having a different conception of God. Tribal people especially. They’ll slaughter each other too, in the name of their God, Allah or Yahweh, though they’re exactly the same thing.
This kind of One God believer assumes an unbeliever doesn’t have a spiritual life. Or if they do it’s just wrong and they’re serving the devil. The One God believer will say, “how can you know right from wrong if you don’t believe in God?” Ridiculous.
To be clear I’m only talking about the hard liners here, not the average everyday Christian, Muslim or Jew. Ordinary religious folk are generally more accommodating. It’s the hard liners you have to worry about. Bigotry and cruelty can so corrupt the heart of a hard liner they’ll carry out the work of the devil and tell you it’s the work of God.
Actually, I wonder if these bigots are believers at all. Perhaps it’s just convenient. From paedophile priests to head chopping ISIS the outfits give them access to victims. The same way bullies are attracted to policing because it gives them an excuse.
The problem with this religious approach; one God or unbelief; is it denies the spiritual life of the vast majority of folk who fall somewhere in between. Folks who feel god in nature for instance, but don’t believe a single creator/controller lies behind it. Or the concept of an impersonal force such as healers and shamans tap into.
Me, I’m Buddhist. Labels are reductionist by nature, but it will do. Buddhism is the philosophy I grock with, intellectually and spiritually. I’ve studied and practiced Buddhist thought and meditation for 50 years, so call me that. 
Buddhism tends to confuse folk who believe spirituality must be linked to a belief in God. By definition Buddhists don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in God but I add a caveat: God needs to be defined before I can say I believe in it or not.
If you think God is an old man with a big beard, like a renaissance painting, well that’s just silly. You’re better off seeking the father figure in your subconscious rather than the sky. And why on Earth this insistence that God is a ‘he’? It’s not just a random gender assignment either. Christians call him ‘God the Father’ so not only is he gendered, there’s a whole belief system that has God acting out the role of ‘our father’. Why isn’t God our mum?
If your definition of God is ‘The Creator and Controller of the Universe’, then no, I don’t believe in any such deity. I prefer to think in terms of ‘enlightenment’. In Buddhism enlightenment is defined as mind fully conscious, absolute clarity, free of obstruction and delusion. Ordinary mind contains this perfection but it’s heavily obscured. Enlightenment acts as the mind’s guiding impulse to clear away delusion, to realise itself.
I believe the enlightened state is responsive to prayer, just as the mind responds to affirmations. In this responsiveness, enlightened mind is not so different to the Christian God. It’s not the same, but it’s enough to allow some connection with my God believing friends.
The vedic religions of India; Hinduism, Brahmanism, Jainism; believe in God but represent the deity according to its aspects.
Brahma -The Creator.
Vishnu – The Sustainer.
Shiva – The Destroyer.
Confronted with Hinduism’s images of God’s multiple qualities, One God believers tend to see idols and demons. Hindus are still talking about God though, they just have a different way of defining it. Hindus share the Christian/Islamic/Jewish belief that God created us as self existing souls whose purpose is to align with his/her/its divine will. This idea of souls separated from their creator is what the Buddha refuted.
The Buddha began as a Hindu, the religion of his upbringing. As a young man he accepted the Hindu concept of God; creator, controller, destroyer. He sought to reconnect with this divinity through yoga, meditation and austerities, as was the way of the times. Upon his enlightenment though he declared God is nothing but a concept. Furthermore he declared, belief in this concept leads to ignorance by reinforcing the illusion of self existent souls under the control of a creator.
The Buddha spoke instead in terms of ‘mind’, with various levels of awareness. From the instinctual unconscious, to conception of a individual self, to fully awakened enlightenment, it’s all mind. The Buddha defined the enlightened mind as fully conscious of itself and all phenomena, past, present and future. Our sense of ourselves as separate self existing souls is a delusion, based on our limited consciousness, but we can ‘awaken’.
The problem with the idea of God, and separate souls that he/she/it created, is it gets fuzzier and fuzzier the more you try to define anything. People are free to make up all sorts of things, and they do, claiming their thoughts come from God. I’m astonished by evangelists and preachers who say stuff like “what god is saying here” and “what god wants of us”, then wander off into their imagination. For a Buddhist used to high standards of enquiry, intellectual discipline, traceable lineages and historical sutras (scripture) that don’t get changed now and then, this sloppy religion just won’t do.
Take for instance the bible. For believers it’s the word of God, inspired, even dictated by God. The bible defines the beliefs and practices expected of Christians. As such you would assume it is a clear and cohesive document, with a clear authoritative history. It’s nothing of the sort. I’m sorry if the following comes across as disrespectful, that’s not my intention. I’m simply looking at the history of the book itself.
The Bible is in two parts, the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament began as oral history and legends (like the flood) going back to when the middle east evolved from hunter/gatherer to farmer (when Cain slew Able). This material was compiled and embellished by teams of Jewish scholars around 300 BC. It gave the tribes of Israel, enslaved by the Babylonians, a cohesive written document defining their faith. It gave them an identity, and hope, due to their covenant with God.
Science however, from Geology to Archaeology to Anthropology, does not support the material. For instance, there’s no trace of the supposed exodus of thousands of slaves, pursued by Pharaohs armies which drown in the Red Sea. No mention of it anywhere in the records Egypt kept of everything they did.
Then there’s the supposed 40 years the Jews wandered in the desert, breeding up armies to slaughter the Canaanites and take their land. The Old Testament describes the great victories of the armies of Moses as Joshua blows down the walls of Jericho, destroys Hebron, Zepath and numerous other cities. The archaeological record however dates the destruction of those cities as occurring over a span of 300 years. The bible story, with Joshua destroying them in an unstoppable sweep through Canaan, is a complete fabrication. Let’s not even start on the absurdities of the ark. Or why God gave Moses the commandments not to kill or steal while telling him kill whoever stood in his way, to rape and enslave their daughters and steal their land.
(Numbers. 31:7. They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man … They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses … Moses was angry with the officers of the army … “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”)
The New Testament at least contains some documented history. There’s little to no doubt Jesus existed and was crucified. However, the New Testament was compiled from letters written between 40 and 200 years after he died. The gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John weren’t written by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. They’re far removed from on the spot reporting. That’s 4 of the 27 books that make up the New Testament, chosen from hundreds of other with often vastly different versions of the story.
The bulk of the New Testament is selected from “divinely inspired and holy letters” dealing with Christian doctrine, counsel, and instruction. They were compiled to give the church structure and authority. Once that church was established Rome took over. The Roman Catholic Church then set about ignoring pretty much everything Jesus taught and got stuck into 1800 years of power hungry barbarity “In His Name”, waving the Bible at every turn. Nevertheless, for believers, the Bible is the word of God. I can’t see it myself.
Contrast this with the way Buddhism came about.
In the Buddha’s days, (2500 years ago in India), intellectual discipline was highly valued and applied to the spiritual path. Spiritually inclined folk of the time (the yogis, not the Brahmin priests) were inclined to analyse and debate all holy scripture, in those days the Sanskrit Vedas and their commentaries. In their intellectual discipline they were close to the Greeks of the same period; Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. There was in fact much sharing of ideas, both ways, along the trade routes from India to Greece. This debate tradition, when applied to the spiritual path, allowed folks to be really clear about just what it was they believed. Buddhists today, east and west, still follow that tradition.
Unfortunately, the God based religions do not. Religion today has replaced clarity and debate with dogma and faith. This makes it very difficult, and tedious, to have a proper discussion with religious folk. They tend to become frustrated, often angry, if you question anything. It quickly becomes a one-way conversation with them lecturing.
At this point though, let me back up. It is not my intention to disrespect anyone’s personal faith. I’m talking about ‘religion’ which does not necessarily equate to a ‘spiritual path’.
I support and cherish anyone who sincerely embodies their spiritual values, be those values Christian, Muslim or Humanist. Whether it’s based in God, Jung, or a Forest Deva, it’s how a person lives their life that matters. The Christian faith I respect is not the one of blind and too often arrogant ‘belief’. The Christian faith I respect is rooted in the heart, in feelings and intuitions, a faith not afraid of inquiry.
Sincere spiritual seekers; Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Indigenous and New Age folk; we can share a common ground: The universal heart of love and compassion. Anyone who claims spiritual authority but doesn’t demonstrate wisdom and compassion as their central focus, is not to be trusted.
The disgraceful so called Buddhists of Myanmar, who rely on violence and corruption to steal their neighbour’s rights and land; the fake Muslim soldiers of ISIS and their God of cruelty; the bigoted Christians worldwide who justify their racism and greed by calling it Gods will; these are the enemies of the spiritual life.
I’d like to finish by bringing this back to a human level and share a little story about common ground, about harmony and the good heart.
Some years ago I spent a month in a Buddhist centre, in the bush outside Sydney. There I met and fell in love with a German traveller, a Christian woman. She came to the centre to learn to meditate. Meditation is the Buddhist specialty, built on a scientific approach to training the mind, perfected and practiced over millennia.
My German friend recognized the value of meditation and wanted to learn the skills to deepen the practice of her Christian faith. We became lovers and she came to live with me after our time at the centre.
I had a separate quiet room, with a modest alter, where I would do my meditation practice. She arranged own little altar next to mine, with an images of Jesus and the Virgin Mary. We both made candle and flower offerings. She placed her meditation cushion next to mine and we sat together every day.
She used meditation to sharpen her ability to hold focus on Jesus. I focused on the mind itself. We sometimes shared our thoughts but mostly our spiritual lives remained private. I was just happy to have her sitting next to me.
With time she found a local group of ‘non-church Christians’ who met to discuss the bible and share in prayer. She fell in love with a good Christian man there. By then our own relationship had evolved into a spiritual friendship, with occasional benefits, so I was not threatened by her new friend. Respect and morality meant they held back from becoming lovers while I organized to move interstate, then she went to him with our 5 cats and my blessing.
That experience remains my model, my hope, for how we can all get along.
So, back to my original heading, Who Owns God? Dumb question hey. It was just a catchy phrase to spring off this exploration. What we really need is to move away from all such silly notions, from restrictive labels and assumptions. Away from this conception of belief, or unbelief, that ignores the vast world of thought taking place between the two. The spiritual life is about so much more than belief.
May you be well.
May you be happy.
May all you good wishes be fulfilled.