Usually people who believe in a God of some sort DO believe they understand it and have connected with it. They personalize the experience internally rather than possibly recognizing it as a part of themselves as per Jung above, because to them it feels like separate = living entity and then give flesh to the idea as per their particular religious doctrines.If I want to relate to something, it is desirable to me. If something is desirable to me, I want to relate to it, unite with it, know it, so understand it. Even if I don't understand it 100%, I've got some sort of idea as to what it is I am desiring.
I think you are literalizing Jung's use of "God" here. remember, he's creating a bridge from a religious mindset to his ideas, so he's using God as a connective point -- what the religious people identify as God, Jung is now equating to some sort of inner facet. He is not really commenting on a tangible independent God, he's speaking metaphorically. When you use symbols, you do not have to understand all the details of them; they exist as complete images in their own right and you can't reduce them to further granularity.So if I want to relate to myself, I don't see how in all of that I end up allegorising my inner world as God's kingdom, when I am not supposed to even believe there is an objective God. That all that really matters is me. Just sounds sort of grandiose and delusional to me. Like, the only way you can really come to self-acceptance is if you blow up your self-image and self-importance into the image of "God". Then you're really "it", you're really "you". Though there is no God you believe in. Yet you are manifesting a desire to worship something. So you worship yourself. Just sounds kind of confused and messed up to me.
And he's saying people mistake their internal unconscious libido or driving/life force as the active God component.