What is the essence of man's relationship with God?

There are two faces of man's ontological relationship with God: the esoteric and the exoteric. The ‘masses’ are said to take time to start wanting to know. John Billings (1865) stated that “as scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand”. In my view, we can always identify this dichotomy with the ontological essence of man's relationship with God as when we analyse ideologies, dogmas, paradigms, and perspectives in depth, we inevitably arrive to the nature of existence. The idea of God in this short text will be referring to the universe, and the ontological relationship is the one between the microcosmos and macrocosms. Moreover, this text is aimed at proposing the framework from which this blog is going to be analysing further issues.

 
In the exoteric realm, the problem is with God’s existence. Does God exist? The exoteric friction here exists as one between atheism and religion. We are told by mainstream science that the world happened by chance, that we live in a sort of permanent chaos of possibilities. That there is no purpose to life. Therefore, directly or indirectly stripping man off the idea of God as part of life because God inevitably infers a meaning; an order; and essentially, a purpose. Religions, in their exoteric form, do the exact opposite. Institutionalised religions of any kind portray a God that is so disingenuous that could only exist in somebody's mind through pure belief and the abandonment of all reasoning. In religions, one usually needs a hierarchical structure of men who present themselves to the masses as some sort of messengers of God, as the ones through which God speaks to, as the chosen ones. The mass is therefore stripped off the inner and intimate connection with God and has to go through some kind of ritual or 'lesson' to even start grasping what God said, and what he meant by his words. 
 
In the esoteric form of comprehending God's relationship with man, the problem is a different one. God's existence is undoubted, the trouble here is with its location. Is God within us or without us? Meaning, is God outside of us or are we containing God? The difference is subtle and both ideas are interlinked in multiple comprehensions. For example, in mainstream science, the only way to see existence for what it truly is would be to step outside of it and see the truth, which is external to man; from outer space. Here, 'outer space' fulfils the role of the location of truth, one can only grasp it when one physically puts one's body and mind outside of the world and contemplates it from there. Here, therefore, it can clearly be seen that the idea of God, as truth and meaning, is found outside of oneself and in this case, physically outside.
 
This is the same idea as the one expressed in the exoteric meaning of religions in the above paragraph, however this 'second or consequential meaning of scientism' is a much more subtle and hidden one to the usual eye. Astronauts are the privileged or chosen angels that get to live in the heavens above unconstrained of our dimensional space and time. In this way, it can clearly be seen that spatial agencies of all around the world act as a kind of religion, seeing existence for what it truly is before coming back to the mundane world to bring THE truth to the mundane man. These scientists or experts act therefore as 'semi-gods' or ‘fallen angels’ and readily position themselves as such by enlightening the illiterate man who has not got the ability (nor the resources) to do that by himself. 
 
In this way, it is no coincidence that the first scientists were always referring to God as the first mover or cause and that the modern humanistic model of the cosmos is the Earth revolving the Sun, as if the earth is paying worship to the God Sun. The reference to the light as God is a recurrent representation of God by man. Lucifer, the one who brings the light, is yet another expression of the same idea. Religions seek for the 'saviour' idea, the one who will bring the light, and thus it is no coincidence that Catholicism has portrayed Jesus-Christ as the Son (or Sun) of God and the chosen one who was sent to save us, as this idea places the inner search of each individual on hold while awaiting another being to do the work for them. In this way, it could not be clearer that 'truth' or God, or the truth about God, is displaced outside of man. Spirituality is only complete or known through somebody else’s spirit, and it is outside the limits of oneself. New age comprehensions of spirituality could be understood in the same way as this religion's mantra is that only present time exists and that only what exists in the mind exists in reality, therefore placing each individual as a kind of 'deactivated' God. If neither past nor future exist and action does not make a difference in the order of reality, we are again placed outside of the parameters of that reality. 
 
All isms that come to mind can be analysed within this framework just explained, and the ontological importance of man’s relationship with God ends up flourishing from every ideology at some point of analysis. A recent example is a derivation from Humanism (a form of atheism) which proclaims to go beyond humanity: trans-humanism. This ideology clearly plays God with the basic assumption that God-like abilities are outside the individual, to be found with the biological introduction of technology, presuming that human beings do not possess this power already.
 
But there is another way of seeing it, and this one is the esoteric way of comprehending man's inner relationship with God. This is the one that places man as a fractal of reality and thus of God, being a part that also contains the whole. This one is ephemeral precisely because it is individual, it cannot be canonised or set in stone. It can only be experienced by the self. This is the one that links with Natural or Common Law; with psychedelics; with psychoanalysis; with intuition and ‘magic’ but also with objective knowledge of right and wrong; and with a deeper but subtler connection between the microcosm and the macrocosm. It can already be seen why this one is unpopular and does not appeal to the masses. It is the opposite to a quick fix; it requires time and attention to the inner and outer reality in order to perceive the natural forces governing and merging both realities. It requires a sort of analysis of the inner childish ego; surpassing the adolescent anger placed towards an external father-like God; to arrive at the comprehension of God within.