I myself am Pagan, and was wondering how different people perceive gods/goddesses.
I believe in creative energies that are in everything, that make up everything. There are five of these - water, earth, air, fire and AKASHA - spirit (god and goddess, I suppose.) I don’t believe in them as forms, but an energies that make up all other energies.
I’d like to hear how other people perceive the divine.
I’m a special brand of agnostic, I think. I believe that there is a higher power of some description out there, and I believe that humans do interact with it at some level. That’s about as specific as I can get, however. I can’t describe how sentient it is, whether you’d call it a being or a force, etc. God (if you’ll pardon the narrow terminology for the sake of simplicity) is beyond the sort of labels that we can assign.
I’ve had powerful spiritual experiences taking part in religious activities of various persuasions - off the top of my head Catholic, Protestant, Wiccan, New Age, Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist. I guess I’ve found too much truth and beauty in each discipline I’ve looked in to to believe that any of them could be true at the exclusion of the other, and too much earthly legalism/negativism in each to believe that any of them are perfect and complete. Humanity, since the beginning of our existence, has found ways to connect to whatever it is that’s out there, bigger than us.
My opinion is that there is no human label that can be applied to God in order to describe his (once again, used for simplicity, and this tends to help my point that we lack the proper labs) nature. I also believe, however, that if one is not applying some energy and thought to spiritual matters on a regular basis, one can’t be living a truly full life. Just one kid’s opinion at 18, though. It’s changed an awful lot before and hopefully I’ll have a lot of time to examine, develop and change it as time goes by.
LC
I agree with you on the specific-paths having their faults, I call myself Pagan (not one of the more specific thousands under Paganism) because I have trouble fitting into strict beliefs of one religion that exclude and condemn other beliefs. All paths lead to the same god, don’t they?
Simple.
I don’t.
I can’t.
Any other answer is invalid; as the senses are required to perceive.
Psychosis is not a sense. 
How Muslims “percieve” God is clear when you read sura 112.
I can try to give a translation in English but it shall be imperfect. Not only because of the normal difficulties to translate Quranic Arabic (and classical arabic in general and even MSA) or because I have a limited knowledge of English. But also since especially the second verse can be translated and explained differently.
Qul huwa Allahu ahadu
Say: He (is) God as Only One
Only One as in “unique” or “The One and Only”
Allahu assamadu
God the Eternal Absolute
Or also: God the stable
which has in this case the same connotation as “Eternal Absolute”
There are other possibilities to translate this verse.
Like for example by Si Hamza Boubakeur who is one of the most famous when it comes to French translations. He translates as:
“Dieu l’Imploré” = God the Implored
To be understood as : at Him all beings address themselves for all their needs. He is sought by the whole creation.
lam yalid wa lam yulad
He begetteth not nor is he begotten
wa lam yakun lahu, kufuwan ahadun
and not one is equal to Him
meaning: there is none like unto Him.
Which makes the difference between the unique creator and the creation.
This verse describes that God is One, uncreated, eternal, absolute, transcendent, unique and the Creator of all.
Sura 112 is the foundation of the Islamic theology, the summary of its doctrine. This sura is considered to provide on its own the summary of the whole Qur’an.
Salaam. A
How do I percieve God?
The typical trinitarian model, with The Son begotten of The Father, and The Holy Spirit proceeding from them both.
Three in one, coequal and coeternal.
Exactly. In order to “perceive” something, you have to see, hear, touch, taste or smell it. Otherwise, you’re merely imagining, fantasizing or hallucinating.
So, would my saying I’ve felt God’s presence qualify as having perceived him?
Yes it would.
But you have not felt God’s presence unless you can quantify the means as to how such an event happened.
With all due respect, Executive Jesus, who are you tell me what I have and have not experienced?
S’an interesting question.
I’ve experienced a number of different things, all of which I have precise vocabulary for within my religious tradition; I’ll do my best to translate out of the jargon.
Within my faith, there is the one unifying divine essence which chooses to manifest as many Names. Names are separate entities, but all partake of the essential divine and act in accord with correct order within their specialty. (This is comparable to considering, say, ‘nature’ as an essential being, and also considering ‘storm weather’, ‘rivers’, and ‘fish’ as separate entities, if that helps clarify that bit of worldview.)
When I go through my regular devotions (which are arguably supposed to be done daily, but which I don’t do that often), I most often wind up with a feeling of awareness of the above-mentioned correct order. I’d expect another pagan to be familiar with the concept of a centering ritual – that’s what it generally does for me.
There are times, though rare, that I get the feeling of the largeness that lies behind the Names. This tends to be rare and fleeting for me; it’s not something that I generally can maintain. Nor something I’d really particularly want to, honestly. (And that’s part of why there are Names in the first place, anyway, to give people ways of interacting if they want to that are more comprehensible.)
Within my faith there is a general belief that there are a few Names that any given person will interact with at any given time, and that this may well change over one’s life. (There’s denominational argument stuff here that’s terribly boring.) I recognise a fair number of Names in various roles in my life, whether in genuine presence or metaphorical, and find that giving each Name the respect of its place governing an aspect of my life, each of those aspects is rendered more joyful and true.
One with a basic knowledge of how human perception operates.
Perception can be physically traced back to a physical emminate of data - or at least identified as to which sense picked up on the data.
There is no physical way to trace back one’s “feeling” of God back to such a source.
So because you can’t scientifically explain it, it didn’t happen to me?
I don’t get it.
Now, you’re talking about “experiencing,” rather than “perceiving.”
You can certainly **experience **an inner state of emotion that has nothing to do with sensory data, and it may be powerful enough to be life-altering. But don’t confuse this with perception, which by definition, can only be experienced through the senses. This is not a purely semantic distinction; epistemologically, they are two distinct terms, perception being a subset of experience. Though I admit that in common usage the distinction is, at times, muddied - due to the fact that most people claim to “know” things that are only wishes or fantasies.
The OP uses the word “perceive,” and I have to assume that’s the word that was meant.
Aren’t supernatural phenomena by definition something that can’t be measured by scientific means, and therefore can not be perceived?
Cause and effect is not a science, it is only logic.
Do you conclude that human perception can occur via a mechanism that is not a human sense?
panache45 made an excellent point regarding perception vs. experience.
I cannot tell you what you have and have not experienced; or are capable of.
I took the word “felt” as “perceived”, whereas, “experienced” is a whole new ball game.
Perception lies in sole dependance of the senses. Which sense allowed you to perceive god?
*dependence * - excuse me.
Hmmmm, so you’re saying this thread should be closed?
I must conclude that it does, since I’ve experienced it.
Hmm…my spiritual sense? Don’t know the answer to that one.
How can you distinguish your “spiritual sense” from a misinterpretation of percieved data is? Just to clarify what I mean by “misinterpretation”. Correct interpretation’s cause is always the same, whereas, abnormal interpretation’s cause can be of different values.
In other words.
Certain people may tell you that there is blue (purple seems to be more popular though) dragon behind them.
Just to get on the right page, would you agree that there would, indeed, be a dragon behind them?