Thirst for God 3

“So, sir, it seems to me this is the issue. You can see it makes little sense to say that the thirst for God is innate, when no one appears to be thirsting for God anymore.”

“Yes, but…”

“…’the thirst is there, it’s just not spoken about with reference to ‘God’ any more.’ Right?”

“Right. Can we progress?”

“Sorry, sir. This is it. G-o-d as such is a label, incidental, historically conditioned etc. Yes? ‘God’ is a sound, a word, a concept. Yet the sound, word, concept is not being used: it’s redundant. Why? Because there is no immediate or essential relation between ‘God’ and whatever experience (e.g. unquenchable thirsting) it once was being used to describe; we don’t need it. Now we have Will to Power, the Other, Tanha etc…”

“But we have inherited God. That which we are and think now is ‘post-Christian’. When we stumble across God, in our inheritance, we find God enticing. Kant said we (should) act as if there were a God; actually we (should) thirst as if there were a God. We should thirst believing our thirst will be quenched. We have inherited our desires too, and our desires and their fulfilment or frustration have their beginning and end in God.”

“The only problem is, that many, reckoning with their inheritance, do not find God enticing. What is enticing about ‘the God of our Fathers?'”




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s