How Do You Manage To Accept The Idea Of God After Having Been Through Xtianity.

[HelloWorld]

This is not meant to be an attack on anyone who, after leaving xtianity, embraced some other religion or spirituality.

 

I have looked into other belief systems. The thing is, after having come to the conclusion that the Christian god does not exist, all of the other religions and spiritualities seem just as ridiculous.

 

When I read the posts in this section, sometimes I feel like people have exchanged one delusion for another. Once again, this is not an attack on any specific person or belief. It is just my observation and feelings.

 

I am looking for some perspectives on this. For those of you have embraced a new religion or spirituality, how is it that you do not consider your new beliefs to be as delusional as xtianity?

 

I repeat that this is not an attack, and I don't want to argue or discredit or belittle your beliefs. I actually genuinely don't understand post-xtianity faith. Maybe it is because I am too early in my deconversion process (half a year). I dont know.

[GraphicsGuy]

I understand your point exactly.

 

I have not embraced any other religion and have a very hard time with any specific concept of "God".

 

However, I have been having a hard time with extreme atheism per sey. It seems slightly...cold. And I feel that it alienates a lot of potential friendships.

 

Not that atheism specifies that you can't be friends with theists. It's just that the context of atheism somewhat implies that you have to automatically think that anyone who believes in anything but cold hard facts is an idiot.

 

I guess I personally don't want to discount the possibility of a "God" of some type. My "God" is excessively ambiguous - completely unknown and virtually unknowable. Just a "something" that could, might possibly be out there somewhere.

 

Basically, when I say "God" people throw their own version of "God" into my sentence (unless they ask for clarification) and that's fine. Whatever.

 

I also ascribe to the possibility of human connectedness/global consciousness and that could be construed as "God" as well.

[The-Captain]

Well as Antlerman would say, define God (or something like that). Hard to say whether the idea is ridiculous or not if you don't know what it is.

 

Eh... it's really late and I'm not entirely sure what I just typed. I think I'll just come back to this tomorrow..

 

But what exactly is it that you believe now that is so not ridiculous compared to peoples various spiritualistic views of reality or whatever. I mean to say, what is your reality and why is it, not delusional.

 

I'm just going to go to bed now, the Nyquill does strange things to my head..

 

Didn't read what GG said, but it was probably smart.

[GraphicsGuy]

Didn't read what GG said, but it was probably smart.

 

That fucking Nyquil did go to your head...

 

[Deva]

I repeat that this is not an attack, and I don't want to argue or discredit or belittle your beliefs. I actually genuinely don't understand post-xtianity faith. Maybe it is because I am too early in my deconversion process (half a year). I dont know.

 

HelloWorld: Despite all of your disclaimers of good intentions, coming into this question with the preconceived idea that everyone here that has adopted another religion is deluded is not going to foster good will and discussion.

 

The title of this thread does not mesh with the first post. Belief in God, or lack thereof, does not bar a person from a spiritual life, yet you say you have investigated all forms or religion and spirituality. I tend to doubt it, if you are so recently deconverted. There are many, many religions and forms of spirituality, some major ones which reject a creator God and others which even condemn the word "belief". You say:

 

I have looked into other belief systems. The thing is, after having come to the conclusion that the Christian god does not exist, all of the other religions and spiritualities seem just as ridiculous.

 

If you think from the beginning that I am deluded, why should I bother to explain my religion or spirituality to you? Wouldn't that be a waste of time on my part? Especially since whatever religion I have adopted, you have already investigated and rejected as delusional?

 

It was almost 10 years after my deconversion that I began seriously looking at another religion. It is not an easy process. Maybe you should give it some time and work on it for awhile.

[LastKing]

This is not meant to be an attack on anyone who, after leaving xtianity, embraced some other religion or spirituality.

 

I have looked into other belief systems. The thing is, after having come to the conclusion that the Christian god does not exist, all of the other religions and spiritualities seem just as ridiculous.

 

When I read the posts in this section, sometimes I feel like people have exchanged one delusion for another. Once again, this is not an attack on any specific person or belief. It is just my observation and feelings.

 

I am looking for some perspectives on this. For those of you have embraced a new religion or spirituality, how is it that you do not consider your new beliefs to be as delusional as xtianity?

 

I repeat that this is not an attack, and I don't want to argue or discredit or belittle your beliefs. I actually genuinely don't understand post-xtianity faith. Maybe it is because I am too early in my deconversion process (half a year). I dont know.

 

 

I dont have a religon but I am exploring. As Deva said (I am not angery BTW) should you really be listing to some you think is trying to delude him self?

 

 

I do have a few reason why I keep exploring religon. One of which is simply because I am turn off by ultra hard core atheism. Although I think Richard Dawkins, Sam hairs and other make great points and I will head there warnings, but I cant really see myself enbracing there life stlye. It bothers me becasue they have built there life on why everyone is wrong. (To atheist reading this, keep in mind I am only talking about the most exstream atheist here. I'm not labling you all off) At least religous liberals like Unintarin Univerlist (Who BTW, a big chunk of its members reject a belfie in God and some are even atheists) can find ways to uplift a whole crowed regardless of what you belive. Hard core Atheist to me come of as preaching we are smarter and your all stupid. I dont know why but its some how reminds me of the exstream christians who I just escaped from.

 

 

As for my veiws on God, I think I might be a Pantheist because its the one out look on God that makes sences to me. I am in debate if I am atheistic pantheist or a theistic pantheist. Pantheistism reminds of what my once more liberal views of the Christain religon before I encounter the relgious radicals who ruined it for me. I am also falling for Unintarin Univerlism becasue I think they have it right on what religon for this day and age should be like. No one cares what you belive just work to gether! (As I already said half its members reject God and the Supper natural) Finaly there Buddhism, as Deva pointed out it has no God but I am starting find myself attactive to that religon as well for that reason.

[HelloWorld]

I repeat that this is not an attack, and I don't want to argue or discredit or belittle your beliefs. I actually genuinely don't understand post-xtianity faith. Maybe it is because I am too early in my deconversion process (half a year). I dont know.

 

HelloWorld: Despite all of your disclaimers of good intentions, coming into this question with the preconceived idea that everyone here that has adopted another religion is deluded is not going to foster good will and discussion.

 

The title of this thread does not mesh with the first post. Belief in God, or lack thereof, does not bar a person from a spiritual life, yet you say you have investigated all forms or religion and spirituality. I tend to doubt it, if you are so recently deconverted. There are many, many religions and forms of spirituality, some major ones which reject a creator God and others which even condemn the word "belief". You say:

 

I have looked into other belief systems. The thing is, after having come to the conclusion that the Christian god does not exist, all of the other religions and spiritualities seem just as ridiculous.

 

If you think from the beginning that I am deluded, why should I bother to explain my religion or spirituality to you? Wouldn't that be a waste of time on my part? Especially since whatever religion I have adopted, you have already investigated and rejected as delusional?

 

It was almost 10 years after my deconversion that I began seriously looking at another religion. It is not an easy process. Maybe you should give it some time and work on it for awhile.

 

 

Whoah. Hold on there.

 

First of all, I never once supposed or said that I thought that everyone who had left Christianity had embraced some other kind of religion. I know that is not true. Notice how I said, "For those of you who have embraced...". That doesn't at all suggest that I think everyone has embraced religion as an ex-C.

 

With regards to having looked at every single religion or spirituality, I misphrased what I meant. What I meant to say was that all of the ones I had looked at seemed to be just as delusional. I never meant to suggest that I had looked at every single possible one. Anyone who suggests that they have looked at everything is clearly off their rocker. There are infinitely many different spiritualities and religions, so for anyone to claim that they have looked at them all...well they are being ridiculous.

 

Next of all, I don't really think it was warranted for you to say that you don't see the point in explaining things to me if I have already decided you are delusional. The reason I started this thread was to try to understand why I could be wrong about feeling that other spiritualities and religions are delusional. And note that I never stated definitively that I think they are delusional. I said they seem delusional. I want to understand you, and yet you tell me that it is not worth it to try to explain things to me because I won't listen or understand anyway.

 

Before I made the OP, I realized that topic title didn't exactly mesh with what the OP said. I am aware that spirituality and religion are not the same thing and that believing in a god is not a precondition for either of them. I just didn't know how else to title the post in the allotted space.

[Deva]

First of all, I never once supposed or said that I thought that everyone who had left Christianity had embraced some other kind of religion. I know that is not true. Notice how I said, "For those of you who have embraced...". That doesn't at all suggest that I think everyone has embraced religion as an ex-C.

 

No, and I did not say that you had. I said "...that everyone here that has adopted another religion," which is not everyone on Ex-C. I am one of those who have adopted another religion, so I am responding.

 

With regards to having looked at every single religion or spirituality, I misphrased what I meant. What I meant to say was that all of the ones I had looked at seemed to be just as delusional. I never meant to suggest that I had looked at every single possible one. Anyone who suggests that they have looked at everything is clearly off their rocker. There are infinitely many different spiritualities and religions, so for anyone to claim that they have looked at them all...well they are being ridiculous.

 

OK, that sounds better.

 

Next of all, I don't really think it was warranted for you to say that you don't see the point in explaining things to me if I have already decided you are delusional. The reason I started this thread was to try to understand why I could be wrong about feeling that other spiritualities and religions are delusional.

 

You said:

 

When I read the posts in this section, sometimes I feel like people have exchanged one delusion for another.

 

You are entitled to your feelings and your opinions, as we are. Based upon what you wrote in your first post, I don't feel the need to explain or debate my beliefs with someone who already is predisposed to think I am delusional. You don't specify which posts make you feel this way, but since I have made several I naturally assumed you may be referring to me.

[Vendredie]

I have to agree with DevaLight, the OP doesn't meshwith the title. I get what you're saying though.

 

I'm starting to idntify as Pagan more than atheist. I'm more of an atheistic pantheist-Pagan (if that makes ny sense at all). When I first left Christianity I had no problem at all for the first months, because I jumped into Paganism. After a while I started to lose belief in any sort of God.

 

Right now I believe that the only higher power is the universe and everything in it. There is no creator-god that exists separately from teh universe (like the Christian God). That's what I believe.

 

Even as a "harder" atheist I didn't base all of my beliefs on science. I was still spiritual, though I just didn't believe in a god. Now I'm a "softer" atheist into Paganism. Pagansim still leaves room for what I have seen and what science has backed up.

[hereticzero]

I have spiritual beliefs I cannot shake. I believe there is a power beyond ourselves. This is a hold over from when I was an xtian. I do not believe in the xtian version of god, as his personality reminds me too much of my mother-in-law. Perhaps the best way to describe what I believe as 'skeptical yet optimistic'. I don't buy the xtian idea of life and death but I am willing to consider what may exist if it can be proven. Satirical Deist will have to do for a label for now.

[Deva]

HelloWorld: I just want to make it clear that I am not mad at you, and that I do hope that you find the answers you are looking for.

[HelloWorld]

HelloWorld: I just want to make it clear that I am not mad at you, and that I do hope that you find the answers you are looking for.

 

I appreciate you saying that. I didn't think you were mad at me per se, but I have been feeling a little self conscious about starting this thread.

 

I think what I was trying to say still came across the wrong way even though I tried really hard to be clear.

 

Thing is, I feel uncomfortable with atheism, too. I find it ignorant in its own right. I feel uncomfortable with being atheist, but I feel kind of jaded with regards to spirituality and religion. And agnosticism does not seem satisfying either.

 

So I am just trying to understand everything. I don't expect to have everything sorted out right away. I understand it takes time. I am just trying to get some insight from people who have moved beyond where I am right now.

[florduh]

My opinion is we have a built-in need to label and compartmentalize everything and everyone, including ourselves. This usually leads to misunderstandings.

 

When I realized what a crock Biblegod was, I didn't automatically assume there could be no spiritual side to existence at all. It took years of study and investigation to come to that conclusion. I have evolved to what is best described as atheism, but even that term is often misunderstood, and there are many degrees of atheistic positions.

 

While there is no evidence, much less conclusive proof, I still can't say with absolute certainty there is no validity to some of the unexplained spooky stories. Quantum physics has opened a door that demonstrates things are not what they seem in our perceived physical reality, so who knows for sure? However, in our real, everyday Newtonian world I see no value or use for such ideas.

[Brother Jeff]

I believe that there probably is a God. I was a very devout Christian for 15 years of my life, and then a pretty hardcore Atheist for several years after that. But, I've realized recently that I made the mistake of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Just because the fundamentalist version of Christianity that I was involved in isn't true, it doesn't follow that that means that there isn't a God. I realized that I went from listening to hardcore Christians for years to listening to hardcore Atheists for years, and now I'm ready for the more rational and reasonable middle-of-the-road. I recently read "The Language of God" by Francis Collins. I didn't find the arguments he made for belief in Christianity very convincing, but his thoughts on why as a scientist he believes in God rang true with me. I must say that after years of reading the hardcore extremists on both sides of the fence, it was quite refreshing to read this "middle-of-the-road" book. It wasn't preachy, and he didn't call everyone who disagrees with him ugly names. Glory!

[The-Captain]

I have Deist leanings myself, and good (to me at least) reasons for them.

 

 

Wow..I was out of it last night. Friggin Cold.

[Kuroikaze]

I think it has a lot to do with what one is comfortable with. It also may have to do with the original reasons we deconverted in the first place.

 

I tend to have a naturalistic view of things, but that doesn't mean I don't have experiences that one might consider "spiritual," I just don't attribute those experiences to divine causes.

 

The more I examine myself I think I come to the conclusion that I am an atheist, not because I don't think there is a god, but because I find the question "does god exist" (even when defined in an understandable way) unimportant. If he does or doesn't, it does not change anything about my life in any noticeable way.

 

If some people think the question is important, well I don't really understand why, but I can respect that.

[The-Captain]

I tend to have a naturalistic view of things, but that doesn't mean I don't have experiences that one might consider "spiritual," I just don't attribute those experiences to divine causes.

 

It's possible that there isn't really a dichotomy between the two, at least some people see it that way.

[nightflight]

Try this!

 

 

She is black by Alan Watts

 

All these ideas of the spiritual, the godly, and the dutiful are not the only way of being religious.

 

There is an old story about the astronaut who went far out into space and was asked upon his return whether he had been to heaven and seen God.

 

"Yes," he said.

 

"Well, what about God?"

 

"She is black."

 

Though this is a well-worn story, it is very profound.

 

I knew a monk who started out in life as an agnostic. Then he began to read Henri Bergson, the French philosopher who claimed the vital force (elan vital), and the more he read into this kind of philosophy the more he saw that these people were really talking about God.

 

I myself have read a great deal of theological reasoning about the existence of God, and it all starts out along this line: If you are intelligent and reasonable, you cannot be a product of a mechanical and meaningless universe. Figs do not grow on thistles, grapes do not grow on thorns; therefore you, as an expression of the universe, as an aperture through which the universe is observing itself, cannot be a mere fluke.

 

Because if this world peoples, as trees bring forth fruit, then the universe itself - the energy which underlies it, what it is all about - must be intelligent.

 

Now when you come to that conclusion, you must be very careful, because you make an unwarranted jump to the further conclusion that that intelligence, that marvellous designing power which produces all of this, is the Biblical God.

 

Be careful.

 

Because that God, contrary to His own commandments, is fashioned in the graven image of a paternal, authoritarian, beneficent tyrant of the ancient Middle East. It is very easy to fall into that trap because it is all prepared, institutionalized in the Roman Catholic Church, in the synagogue, in the Protestant churches - all there ready for you to accept.

 

Under the pressure of social consensus it is very natural to assume that when somebody uses the word God, it is that father figure which is intended, because even Jesus used the analogy of the father for his experience of God.

 

He had to, there was no other one available to him in his culture.

 

Nowadays we are in rebellion against the image of the authoritarian father. This is especially true in the United States, which is a republic rather than a monarchy. But to reject the paternalistic image of God as an idol is not necessarily to be an atheist.

 

I have advocated something called atheism in the name of God. That is to say, an experience, a contact, a relationship to God with the ground of your being, that does not have to be embodied or expressed in any specific image. Theologians on the whole do not like that idea.

 

I find in my discourse with them that they want to be a bit hardnosed about the nature of God. They want to say that God has indeed a very specific nature. This ethical monotheism holds that the governing power of this universe has some extremely definite opinions and rules to which our minds and acts must be conformed. If you do not watch out, you will go against the fundamental grain of the universe and be punished. In old-fashioned parlance, you will burn in the fires of hell forever. In modern terms, you will fail to be an authentic person. (It is just another way of talking about it.)

 

There is this feeling you see, that there is this authority behind the world and it is not you, it is something else. This approach, which is Judeo-Christian, and indeed Muslim, makes a lot of people feel estranged from the root and ground of being. There are, in fact, a lot of people who never grow up and who are always in awe of the image of grandfather.

 

Now I am a grandfather, and I am no longer in awe of grandfathers. I know that I am just as stupid as my grandfathers were. Therefore I am not about to bow down to an image of God with a long white beard!

 

We intelligent people do not believe in that kind of God, not really. I mean we think that God is spirit, that God is undefinable and infinite and all that sort of thing; but nevertheless, the images of God have a far more powerful effect upon our emotions than on our ideas.

 

And when people read the Bible and sing hymns like "Ancient of days who sittest throned in glory" and "Immortal, invisible God only wise, in light inaccessible hid from our eyes" they have still got that fellow up there with a beard. It is way back in the emotions.

 

To offset this, we should think in contrary imagery, and the contrary imagery is:

 

She is black.

 

Imagine instead of God the Father,

 

God the Mother,

 

and instead of an illuminous being blazing with light,

 

an unfathomable darkness.

 

This idea is portrayed in Hindu mythology by Kali, the Great Mother. She is represented in the most terrible imagery. Kali has fangs and a lolling tongue drooling with blood; she has a scimitar in one hand, a severed head in the other, and she is trampling on the body of her husband, Shiva. Shiva represents, furthermore, the destructive aspect of the deity, wherin all things are dissolved so that they can be reborn again. Here is this bloodsucking, terrible mother as the image of the supreme reality behind the universe. She is the representative of all the most awful things of which we are most terrified.

 

This is a very important image.

 

Suppose you are presently feeling fairly good. The reason you know you are feeling fairly good is that way far off in the background of your mind, you have got the sensation of something absolutely ghastly that simply must not happen. And so, against that which is not happening, and which does not necessarily have to happen, by comparison you feel pretty good.

 

That absolutely ghastly thing that must not happen is Kali.

 

We must begin to wonder whether the presence of this Kali is not in a way very beneficent. How would you know that things were good unless there were something that was not good at all?

 

She is black. This is not a final position but a way of beginning to look at a problem and of getting our minds out of their normal ruts.

 

She, that is to say, the feminine, represents what is philosophically called the negative principle. Of course people in our culture today who support women's liberation do not like to hear the feminine associated with the negative, because the negative has acquired very bad connotations. We say that we should accent the positive; that is a purely male chauvinistic attitude. How would you know if you were outstanding unless by contrast there was something instanding?

 

You cannot appreciate the convex without the concave. You cannot appreciate the firm without the yielding. Therefore the so-called negativity of the feminine principle is obviously life-giving and very important.

 

But we live in a culture that does not notice it. For example, our attention fixes itself upon figures and ignores backgrounds. We see a painting, a representation of a bird, and do not notice the white paper underneath it. We see a printed book and assume what is important is the printing and that the page doesn't matter. But if you reconsider the whole thing, how could there be visible printing without the page underlying it?

 

We somehow consider an underlying position, like the missionary position, to be inferior. But to be underlying is to be fundamental.

 

The word substance refers to that which stands underneath (sub - underneath and stance - stands). To be substantial is to be underlying, to be the support,

 

the foundation of the world.

 

This is the great function of the feminine, to be the substance.

 

The feminine is therefore represented by space, which appears black at night.

 

Were it not for black and empty space, there would be no possibility whatsoever of seeing the stars. Stars shine out of space and astronomers are beginning to realize that stars are a function of space. Now this seems contrary to our common sense because we think that space is simply nothingness, and do not realize that space is completely basic to everything.

 

It is like your consciousness. Nobody can imagine what consciousness is. It is the most elusive whatever-it-is of all.

 

Because it is the background of everything else that we know, we don't really pay much attention to it. We pay attention to the things within the field of consciousness, to the outlines, to the objects, to the so-called things that are in the field of vision, the sounds that are in the field of hearing, and so forth. But what it is - whatever it is - that embraces all of that, we don't pay much attention to it. We cannot even try to think about it.

 

It is like trying to look at your head. Try to look at your head and what do you find? Not even a black blob in the middle of things; you just do not find anything.

 

And yet, your head is that which you see, just as space is that out of which the stars shine.

 

There is something very odd about all of this. That which you cannot put your finger on, that which always escapes you, that which is completely elusive -

 

the blank

 

- seems to be absolutely necessary for there to be anything whatsoever. Now let us take this further.

 

Kali is also the principle of death because she carries a scimitar in one hand and a severed head in the other.

 

Death is tremendously important to think about. We put it off. Death is swept under the carpet in our culture.

 

In the hospital they try to keep you alive as long as possible, though it may be an utterly desperate situation. They will not tell you that you are going to die. When relatives have to be informed that it is a "hopeless" case, frequently they are warned not to tell the patient. And all the relatives come around with hollow grins and say "Well, you'll be all right in about a month, and then we'll go and have a holiday by the sea and listen to the birds." And the dying person knows this is a mockery.

 

We have made death howl with all kinds of ghouls. We have invented dreadful afterlives. The Christian version of heaven is as abominable as the Christian version of hell. Nobody wants to be in church forever!

 

Children are absolutely horrified when they hear these hymns which say "Prostrate before Thy throne to lie and gaze and gaze on Thee." Now, in a very subtle theological way I can wangle the hymn around to make it extremely profound. To be prostrate, and yet to gaze (see) at the same time is coincidentia oppositorum, a coincidence of opposites, which is very deep. But to a child it is a crick in the neck.

 

We are faced with the idea that what might happen after death is that we are going to be confronted by our own judge, the one who knows all about us. This is the Big Papa who knows you were a naughty boy or a naughty girl from the beginning of things. He is going to look right through to the core of your inauthentic existence - and what kind of heebie-jeebies may come up!

 

Or you may believe in reincarnation and think that your next life will be the rewards and the punishments for what you have done in this life. Well, you know you got away with murder in this life, and the most awful things are going to happen next time around.

 

You look upon death as a catastrophe.

 

Then there are other people who say "When you're dead, you're dead." Just as though nothing is going to happen at all. So what do you have to worry about? Well, we don't quite like that idea, it spooks us. You know what it would be like to die? To go to sleep and never, never wake up?

 

There are a lot of things it is not going to be like. It is not going to be like being buried alive. It is not going to be like being in the darkness forever. I tell you, it is going to be as if you never had existed at all. Not only you, but everything else as well. There just never was anything, and there is no one to regret it.

 

And there is no problem.

 

Think about that for awhile.

 

It is kind of a weird feeling you get when you really think about that.

 

Really imagine it.

 

Just to stop altogether, and you cannot even call it stop, because you cannot have stop without start. There was no start, there was just no-thing.

 

If you think about it, that is the way it was before you were born. If you go back in memories as far as you can go, you get to the same place. And as you go forward in your anticipation of the future, as to what it is going to be like to be dead, then you get funny ideas. That this blankness is the necessary counterpart of what we call being.

 

Now we all think we are alive. We think we are really here. How could we experience that as a reality unless we had once been dead? What gives us any ghost of a notion that we are here except by contrast with the fact that once we were not? And later on, will not be?

 

This thing is a cycle, like positive and negative poles in electricity. This is the value of the symbolism of

 

She is black

 

She, the womb principle, the receptive, the instanding, the void and the dark. What could light shine out of except darkness?

 

If we can grasp this, many fascinating consequences follow.

 

There is no true blackness in nature. I have a supposedly black cat, but upon close inspection this cat is dark brown. All shadows are colored. When I feel low sometimes I say "Help, I'm discolored." Just as there are no black cats, there are not really any black people. I am a somewhat pasty pink rather than a true white, while my so-called black friends are various shades of brown.

 

At the same time, the use of the word black contains something very meaningful. It is the principle of the night. The other side of light is important because it shows us that light cannot be light without black. Therefore we must abandon the theology in which the light and the darkness are irreconcilably opposed to each other.

 

It is the most schizophrenic possible view to think of light/white as good, that which is whole and must be preserved, and darkness/black as evil, dirty, and to be abandoned or discarded. The light and the darkness, the white and the black, the yang and the yin, are indispensable to each other.

 

We do not want to think of the resolution of the two as a kind of muddy mixture of black and white. We try to think what it is that is common to light and darkness, black and white, that escapes our imagination.

 

When male and female meet - really meet - something happens between them which escapes their imagination.

 

"I love you."

 

What does it mean?

 

A woman may ask a man "Why do you love me?"

 

And he fumbles "I don't know, there is a little something about you that I can't put my finger on. Please don't ask me to explain."

 

Then on some occasion a man may say "Oh, the situation is perfectly clear, it's thus and so, everyone understands that" and the woman says "Well, maybe, but I think there is something you have left out, something very important that you have failed to include in your idea. It doesn't feel right to me."

 

And this is the everlasting game between the two, so that they are interminable mysteries to each other. Women look knowing and think that they understand men. And men look fierce and think that they understand women. But it is not so.

 

Neither understands the other, and that is as it should be. If we understood everything completely down to its very roots we would be bored.

 

Everything would be predictable.

 

What is more of a bore than knowing a person so well that their reactions to everything under the sun are predictable? You know automatically what their opinion will be on any subject and therefore you do not bother to discuss anything. Indeed, such a predictable person is very vulnerable, because anybody whose habits are completely predictable is, as Don Juan told Carlos Castenada, easy prey.

 

Always be surprising and, furthermore, surprise yourself!

 

The only way that you can be truly irregular is not to know yourself, in your own head, what you are going to do next. This is as Jesus taught. He said that everyone who is born of the Spirit is like the wind which blows where it wills, and you hear its sound but you cannot tell where it is coming from or where it is going. He also advised his disciples that when they were going to speak they were not to think in advance of what they would say, but just wait for the Spirit to give it to them. (Naturally all clegymen are trained to prepare their sermons carefully in advance!)

 

It is the unknown that is profoundly scary to most of us.

 

We fear that God - that is to say, the ground of our being, the energy which we all express - should remain unknown. We fix on all these images of one kind or another, whether it be male or female, light or dark, and we all know very well that what is essential to us cannot be gotten at, and that worries us.

 

To abandon ourselves peacefully and truly in a surrendered way to the possibility of death, to the nonexistence of our memories, of our egos; to flip over from isness to isnotness; to yield to the feminine, which we gladly do when engaged in sexual intercourse, something very closely associated in all symbolic history with death: These are steps that cause us much anxiety.

 

We are at once fascinated and horrified by this thing that we can never know, never control.

 

We thus come into the presence of the God who has no image.

 

Behind the father image, behind the mother image, behind the image of light inaccessible, and behind the image of profound and abysmal darkness there is something else that we cannot conceive at all. This is not atheism in the formal sense of the word. It is a profoundly religious attitude, because in practical terms it corresponds to an attitude towards life of total trust and letting go.

 

When we form images of God they are all really exhibitions of our lack of faith. We want something to hold on to, something to grasp, the rock of ages, or whatever. But only when we do not grasp do we have the attitude of faith.

 

Ordinarily, if I were to present you with an idea that seems to you completely negative, abolishing all the certainties to which you feel you ought to cling and apparently leaving you in the midst of the void, I would normally be thought of as a nihilist, a destroyer. It is true in a way that this is a Shiva attitude, a destructive attitude. But again we come to the idea of atheism in the name of God. Only if you are willing to let go of all these conceptions can you really discover yourself.

 

If you let go of all the idols you will of course discover that this unknown which is the foundation of the universe is precisely you.

 

It is not the you you think you are.

It is not your opinion of yourself.

It is not your idea or image of yourself.

It is not your chronic sense of must.

 

Your self, you see, is way beyond all of that.

It is something you could never catch hold of.

 

You cannot grasp it; why would you need to?

Suppose you could; what would you do with it?

 

You can never get at it.

 

The attitude of faith towards that profound central mystery is to stop chasing it.

 

If that happens, the most amazing things will follow. If I try to improve myself and control myself by lifting myself up by my own boot straps, I will waste energy indefinitely; it cannot be done. When I abandon the attempt, suddenly all that energy that I have been wasting is available to something else.

 

Most of us are in a constant state of tension about whether we are going to survive or not. Every minute of driving on the freeway you wonder whether you are going to survive. Take an airplane and you wonder whether you are going to survive. You wonder where the money is going to come from to buy groceries tomorrow. We are absolutely absorbed by this need to survive. We are "tired of livin' and scared of dyin'."

 

Suppose you realize that it does not matter whether you survive or not. Do you really need to survive?

 

Would you not feel much better

if you gave up the need to survive?

 

Would you not feel freer?

 

Would you not have more energy available

for glorious things?

 

Would you not be able to love others more

if you were no longer concerned about whether

you are going to survive?

 

We have been taught that we must go on, it is our duty.

 

It is not.

 

All these ideas of the spiritual, the godly, and the dutiful are not the only way of being religious.

 

There is an ineffable mystery that underlies ourselves and the world. It is the darkness from which the light shines. When you recognize the integrity of the universe, and that death is as certain as birth, then you can relax and accept that this is the way it is.

 

There is nothing else to do.

[Exalya]

I understand your point exactly.

 

I have not embraced any other religion and have a very hard time with any specific concept of "God".

 

However, I have been having a hard time with extreme atheism per sey. It seems slightly...cold. And I feel that it alienates a lot of potential friendships.

 

Not that atheism specifies that you can't be friends with theists. It's just that the context of atheism somewhat implies that you have to automatically think that anyone who believes in anything but cold hard facts is an idiot.

 

I guess I personally don't want to discount the possibility of a "God" of some type. My "God" is excessively ambiguous - completely unknown and virtually unknowable. Just a "something" that could, might possibly be out there somewhere.

 

Basically, when I say "God" people throw their own version of "God" into my sentence (unless they ask for clarification) and that's fine. Whatever.

 

I also ascribe to the possibility of human connectedness/global consciousness and that could be construed as "God" as well.

 

I feel similarly. While I have not abandoned the concept of spirituality entirely, I have not decided to go for a new set of arbitrary rules and assumptions about God (which I sometimes refer to as "The Is"). I have personally always felt there was something more... so I am open to experiencing something more.

[par4dcourse]

Scooby-Do has left the building. I'm on the "no spooks, boogers, spirits, demons, or free lunches" bandwagon.

In centruies of trying to contact "the other side" no one has succeeded in a verifiable way. Quantum physics is weird enough without being supernatural. If the big He stops by for tea and crumpets today, I may rescind that opinion, but otherwise, no supernatural. Leo Kottke on acoustic 12-string is close, though.

[ogilvy]

I haven't embraced any other religion. I was too long sold on Christianity to be able to think any other religion could be the 'true' religion. But sometimes when there's something come up which I would have once prayed for, something important like a family member in potential danger, I pray to ALL the gods (hehe), not thinking about it too deeply, but just kind of pray to whatever benign being might be out there, just in case. If that God IS, after all, Jehovah, father of Jesus, then I figure he will accept my prayer, as my prayer is to 'the real God', and if he's not there, then he won't be angry with me. I'm a little bit wishy- washy these days.

[upstarter]

I rarely post in this forum because I feel that of all the forums on Ex-C this is the biggest mine field. I fall in the camp with par... I simply cannot find any reason to believe in any god. So I guess if people ask (thankfully they very rarely do) I call myself atheist. That does not mean I am so arrogant as to believe I have all the answers, that I can definitively say there is no "higher power" and, as GG suggested, that I therefore am compelled to feel that anyone who believes in a deity is automatically an idiot.

 

Almost since the beginning of humankind, people have believed in some form of god. We seem to be wired for that. So, it never surprises me that people are looking for something to believe in. I haven't found any "power" to believe in, outside of myself. But if others have, I do not consider them less intelligent.

 

Heather

[BlueGiant]

To answer your question, HelloWorld, as to how I can have a belief in deity, a religion of sorts, after Christianity, the short answer I'd give is "Very carefully, with great skill."

 

The long and (kind of) material answer: After a lot of research, particularly into Western mystic traditions, some quality time with the Tao Te Ching, and some interesting experiences, I've come to a much more fluid version of deity than is conventional. While I'm not a part of any formal religion, instead bashing one together from what appear, at least to me, to be the useful bits of various philosophies and religious systems I've encountered, into a home-grown, for personal use, religion. I do believe in a force that we can tap into, that is greater than what we normally can access. This power may come from within, may be a product of some kind of collective unconscious, may even be a god of sorts. As for accessing it, I tend to use gods/goddesses more as a method of focus, a sort of symbolic mental shorthand to get at a concept I want to work with. Ritual, magic, etc may also be employed in this endevor.

 

Sometimes I treat them as real, sometimes not. Depends on what I need to do (or what my paradigm is) at the moment.

 

As far as an afterlife goes, I find a certain amount of elegance, in a Conservation Law sort of way, to reincarnation, but I have to fully agree that I, and no one else, really knows what happens after we bite it, buy the farm, take a flying leap from this mortal coil, kick the bucket, pass on or otherwise expire and die. And that's okay.

 

Final note: I figure if you have a religion (or a lack of one), you may as well enjoy it. I don't think people belong to religions that they don't on some level enjoy. Guess it shows how many people are masochists out there...

[Vigile]

Almost since the beginning of humankind, people have believed in some form of god. We seem to be wired for that

 

Yeah, perhaps those of us who don't believe in anything just have our wiring screwed up. Like you I can't think that just because someone believes in something they're automatically nuts or worse, stupid. I've met too many intelligent and sane people to run with that theory long.

 

I do understand the OP's question though. When you deconvert it's not a simple process for most of us. For me, and a lot of others it took years of careful thought, questions, and research. After going through all that and then going through disillusionment it is a bit confusing to try and wrap one's mind around the idea that some might still find some other form of metaphysical belief. The process of deconverting definitely killed any last semblance of possibility of that ever happening for me and as such makes it hard to understand why the same didn't occur in others. That's not a judgment, just an explanation.

[Guest gatewalker3813]

This is not meant to be an attack on anyone who, after leaving xtianity, embraced some other religion or spirituality.

 

I have looked into other belief systems. The thing is, after having come to the conclusion that the Christian god does not exist, all of the other religions and spiritualities seem just as ridiculous.

 

When I read the posts in this section, sometimes I feel like people have exchanged one delusion for another. Once again, this is not an attack on any specific person or belief. It is just my observation and feelings.

 

I am looking for some perspectives on this. For those of you have embraced a new religion or spirituality, how is it that you do not consider your new beliefs to be as delusional as xtianity?

 

I repeat that this is not an attack, and I don't want to argue or discredit or belittle your beliefs. I actually genuinely don't understand post-xtianity faith. Maybe it is because I am too early in my deconversion process (half a year). I dont know.

 

 

many of us ex-christians have a deep loathing after leaving for me was protestantism.

the following is my opinion no matter how harsh it may sound it is reality of protestantism part of Christianity.

I was raised southern baptist, in the fundie state of Virginia.

We all find out after leaving that there IS systematic brainwashing that goes on in churches and congregations.

It is not seen because why question that friendly protestant you met with a message that relates to how your feeling.

Missionaries draw you into their religion by watching how you are they mostly are attracted to disenfranchised and vulnerable people.

If you think this sounds cultic, my friends it IS and that is why i use the word subversion when i talk about the ethics of the whole of Christianity.

Because Christianity has two major parts which is Catholicism and Protestantism.

Both are completely subversive, and the branch with the most innosent blood on it's hands is Catholicism(lol, and the Vatican has records of the homicides it's done over the centuries).

Protestantism has it's share of bloodletting as well thanks to the Crusades, witch hunts, and heretics burnings of it's own.

i have been an ex-protestant for near 25 years.

Helloworld, my advice to you is educate yourself i'm not an atheist nor am i a spiritualist.or a new ager i don't adhere to any dogma but i do believe in god, but my view of god is a culmination of my studies over the years and my love of science i consider myself a mystic i read sacred texts for knowledge but not as a source my beliefs.

Although i do sound Atheist at times i do keep an open mind i don't down the individual their moral code and view of reality not my place to judge the person, but the religion on the other hand is a different matter.

 

Ray