Belief In A God?

[pandora]

I'll catch up on others thoughts here later but I voted "Other" because it's complex. Yes, I believe in a personal, Absolute God. As a dualistic expression of what I AM. We all are. Understanding, relating to, communing with. reaching towards that Absolute beyond ourselves, is to symbolically experience ourselves. And in so doing, we become ourselves. Our true Self, as the Hindus put it. It is a symbolic process towards Self Realization. All is God, and we are That. How else do we come to accept that except relationally withing our normal dualistic framework toward that Nondual Realization?

 

Okay, so how many followed that? One hand, maybe two?

 

I do. Nature and life and evolution is nothing more than God experiencing Itself. I like that idea, and you eloquently expressed a similar version of that thought. That is how I view spirituality, but I focus my thoughts on self-awareness and improving my own attitudes and perceptions. I do not translate this to ever mean that there is a being or entity outside of ourselves that is personified in any way... yes, nondualism. The usage of the word God here to me is merely symbolic and I wouldn't say that I believe in God in any traditional sense.

[Ouroboros]

Not me, but I really wish that I did!

With that attitude, one day you will.

 

And Antlerman, yes, I do get it too.

[Ouroboros]

I'll take the time to explain if you wish, but it'll take a few paragraphs, or more.

And contemplation. It definitely not something that just comes through words.

[Antlerman]

I'll catch up on others thoughts here later but I voted "Other" because it's complex. Yes, I believe in a personal, Absolute God. As an expression of what I AM. We all are. Understanding, relating to, communing with. reaching towards that Absolute beyond ourselves, is to symbolically experience ourselves. And in so doing, we become ourselves. Our true Self, as the Hindus put it. It is a symbolic process of Self Realization. All is God, and we are That. How else do we come to accept that except relationally withing our normal dualistic framework toward that Nondual Realization?

 

Okay, so how many followed that? One hand, maybe two?

Not me, but I really wish that I did!

I'll take the time to explain if you wish, but it'll take a few paragraphs, or more.

I would love it if you did.

Oh sure, yes. I may need to do a few installments on this. I have only a few minutes here. First thought to start this with that comes to mind is to quote another person I've quoted a few times. I practice meditation and much of this sort of insight, or should I say exposure comes thought that internal process. I started a topic on meditation in this forum here. In your spare time you may wish to look through that as well. But the quote I wished to share in the remaining moments I have here is from Ken Wilber. Look this over and we can pick it up from there:

 

"But this is not God as an ontological other, set apart from the cosmos, from humans, and from creation at large. Rather, it is God as an archetypal summit of one's own Consciousness. ... By visualizing that identification 'we actually do become the deity. The subject is identified with the object of faith. The worship, the worshiper, and the worshiped, those three are not separate'. At its peak, the soul becomes one, literally one, with the deity-form, with the dhyani-buddha, with (choose whatever term one prefers) God. One dissolves into Deity, as Deity - that Deity which, from the beginning, has been one's own Self or highest Archetype."

 

Ken Wilber, Eye to Eye, pg. 85

[Astreja]

I still have sympathies towards polytheism, but I can't vouch for the existence of gods that may or may not be out there somewhere. I think their power lies in memes anyway (for example, Athena as the personification of wisdom), and that the physical existence of such beings is actually superfluous.

 

I have been toying with the idea, though, that there's something about the universe itself that could be considered godlike... Except that it isn't necessarily sentient and that it's natural rather than supernatural. I've been imagining the far reaches of the universe as a giant concave reflector that echoes what is real and true, and cancels out what's false (because it's out of phase). Hope that image makes at least a bit of sense...

[Ouroboros]

Perfect sense, Astreja.

[asanerman]

I'll catch up on others thoughts here later but I voted "Other" because it's complex. Yes, I believe in a personal, Absolute God. As an expression of what I AM. We all are. Understanding, relating to, communing with. reaching towards that Absolute beyond ourselves, is to symbolically experience ourselves. And in so doing, we become ourselves. Our true Self, as the Hindus put it. It is a symbolic process of Self Realization. All is God, and we are That. How else do we come to accept that except relationally withing our normal dualistic framework toward that Nondual Realization?

 

Okay, so how many followed that? One hand, maybe two?

Not me, but I really wish that I did!

I'll take the time to explain if you wish, but it'll take a few paragraphs, or more.

I would love it if you did.

Oh sure, yes. I may need to do a few installments on this. I have only a few minutes here. First thought to start this with that comes to mind is to quote another person I've quoted a few times. I practice meditation and much of this sort of insight, or should I say exposure comes thought that internal process. I started a topic on meditation in this forum here. In your spare time you may wish to look through that as well. But the quote I wished to share in the remaining moments I have here is from Ken Wilber. Look this over and we can pick it up from there:

 

"But this is not God as an ontological other, set apart from the cosmos, from humans, and from creation at large. Rather, it is God as an archetypal summit of one's own Consciousness. ... By visualizing that identification 'we actually do become the deity. The subject is identified with the object of faith. The worship, the worshiper, and the worshiped, those three are not separate'. At its peak, the soul becomes one, literally one, with the deity-form, with the dhyani-buddha, with (choose whatever term one prefers) God. One dissolves into Deity, as Deity - that Deity which, from the beginning, has been one's own Self or highest Archetype."

 

Ken Wilber, Eye to Eye, pg. 85

 

I hesitate even posting the following!

 

I'm partial to this eye opening rendition of "fully enlightened and ever-present Divine awareness... not hard to attain but impossible to avoid."

 

Why were looking everywhere, when God is the Looker?....

Why were you expending so much effort, when ever-present awareness is spontaneously and

effortless arising right now, as is the awareness of this book, and the area around it, and your

body, and the room you are in--notice them all, and notice the they are all effortlessly arising in

your present awareness, the are all effortlessly arising in your timeless Wakefulness, right here,

right now--and how much effort do you have to make in order for this present awareness to happen?

Where were you planning on seeing God, when God is the ever-present Seer? How much of knowledge

did you think you had to cram into your head in order to know God when God is the ever-present Knower?

 

~Ken Wilber

Integral Spirituality

pp.208-209

 

Wilber continues for several paragraphs, its worth the read!

 

"I and Thou and We and It, all brought together in the radiate contours of the simple Suchness of this and every moment, as you

feel

into the texture of the Kosmos and find your very Self in every warp and woof of a universe now arising as the radiance of the Spirit that can never be denied, any more than you can deny the awareness of this page, knowing too, that the Spirit and the awareness of this page are one and the same, and certainly not-two, so that you realize... with the great sages East and West that the ultimate secret of the spiritual world, namely, that fully enlightened and ever-present Divine awareness is not hard to attain but impossible to avoid." ~ibid

 

If I had been taught this notion of God in the little rural Sunday School class I attended all those years ago, that act would have saved me so much misguided effort and grief.

 

The adult spiritual authorities that were called to proclaim the truth in my little part of the world did not see the "impossible to avoid"--how was I, an uninformed and inexperienced child, to have known, when even my parents, who weren't religious, could not see the "impossible to avoid."

 

No one was spiritually wise enough to see what was "impossible to avoid. Instead they anthropomorphized the concept that the word "God" represented with vain and super-natural imaginings. God's last name was Damn, and the Word was (God's Word) that I was damned. And words inform worlds, immature and adult worlds.

 

The "conveyor belt" (my religious tradition) that was to equip me with the knowledge of all things spiritual and wise, failed to teach me what "it" said I needed to know.

 

As I type the word 'God,' especially with the first letter in upper case, I feel cheap and run the risk of being labeled a fanatic or worst even, a "believer!" How emotionally loaded can one word get?

 

A mentor once told that he limits himself using the word "God" to once or twice a year, for some of the reasons I've mentioned.

 

I suppose, one needs to be cautious of the connotations when using words like God, Consciousness, Spirit, spirituality (especially with the first letter in upper case).

 

Words do inform worlds!

 

No doubt I've reached my "loaded" word limit! .

[Noggy]

I believe in my lord and savior jesus christ, and if you all are smart (and don't want to go to hell) you will too!

 

<3

[BMandeville]

I don't have any superstitious beliefs. I don't believe white lighters are bad luck, I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster, and I don't believe in any supernatural, intangible, or otherwise evasive and undetectable beings. If a claim can't be proven or if acceptance of it doesn't confer any advantage upon me, I see no reason to take it seriously. It makes absolutely no difference one way or another if gods and ghosts do or don't exist; whether or not I believe in them doesn't change the way the world works. If I found out tomorrow that a god existed, I expect things would remain much the same for me.

 

I voted "No." I'm not an atheist, either. I tell people I'm a Theist-In-Waiting. I'll be more than happy to accept the idea of a god when the concept demonstrates the same characteristics of anything else I understand to be true, such as evidence and usefulness. Otherwise, it's an appealing fairy tale that happens to be popular. I place theism in the same category as conspiracy theories, cryptozoology, and psychic mediums: nonsense that gives people meaning to their lives where they would otherwise have none. More power to them, but I have better things to do with my time (like waste it on the Internet when I should be working).

[Deva]

I'll catch up on others thoughts here later but I voted "Other" because it's complex. Yes, I believe in a personal, Absolute God. As a dualistic expression of what I AM. We all are. Understanding, relating to, communing with. reaching towards that Absolute beyond ourselves, is to symbolically experience ourselves. And in so doing, we become ourselves. Our true Self, as the Hindus put it. It is a symbolic process towards Self Realization. All is God, and we are That. How else do we come to accept that except relationally withing our normal dualistic framework toward that Nondual Realization?

 

Okay, so how many followed that? One hand, maybe two?

 

I do get it. I wouldn't use some of the words you use, but I do agree with the basic idea of what you are saying. The problem is that what you, me, Asaner and Wilber are trying to describe is totally beyond concepts. In my opinion, adding more words doesn't help and we have a communication problem.

 

"A dualistic expression of what I AM" is a bit confusing. To me, the I AM appeared with the brain and nervous system and the absolute is prior to that. I take the route of deconstruction and negation. We have to see for ourselves that things are really not as they appear and you are not "a person."

[Antlerman]

I'll catch up on others thoughts here later but I voted "Other" because it's complex. Yes, I believe in a personal, Absolute God. As a dualistic expression of what I AM. We all are. Understanding, relating to, communing with. reaching towards that Absolute beyond ourselves, is to symbolically experience ourselves. And in so doing, we become ourselves. Our true Self, as the Hindus put it. It is a symbolic process towards Self Realization. All is God, and we are That. How else do we come to accept that except relationally withing our normal dualistic framework toward that Nondual Realization?

 

Okay, so how many followed that? One hand, maybe two?

 

I do get it. I wouldn't use some of the words you use, but I do agree with the basic idea of what you are saying. The problem is that what you, me, Asaner and Wilber are trying to describe is totally beyond concepts. In my opinion, adding more words doesn't help and we have a communication problem.

 

"A dualistic expression of what I AM" is a bit confusing. To me, the I AM appeared with the brain and nervous system and the absolute is prior to that. I take the route of deconstruction and negation. We have to see for ourselves that things are really not as they appear and you are not "a person."

We are on the same page, and I very much agree that it is totally beyond concepts. Uroborus said it himself in here that, "And contemplation. It definitely not something that just comes through words." It is a realization that is beyond conceptualization. Yes, I agree even my saying "A dualistic expression of what I AM", is a bit confusing. I tried to convey that in that post by concluding, "How else do we come to accept that except relationally withing our normal dualistic framework toward that Nondual Realization?" There are no words to define nonduality, as nonduality 'is' both 'no-thing' and all things at once.

 

There's a limit to conceptual frameworks and the only way to 'see' it is to enter within it. Or to better put it, to open to what is already and always is. It cannot be conceptualized because it encompasses all subject/object dualities and exists within and as all subject/object dualities. (The closest that comes to this IMO is panentheism, as opposed to pantheism, but that fall short itself). Reasoning requires subject/object distinctions. Simple Being however, does not. You don't reason Being.

 

Before I try to share a few more thoughts as I said I would, I want to say how much I loved Asanerman's post! What a beautiful expression of his experiences and thoughts. I loved that Wilber quote particularly,

 

"How much of knowledge did you think you had to cram into your head in order to know God when God is the ever-present Knower

?"

 

That really sums up my experience. To add a few more thoughts for the time I have, I say I approach God as the Face we put upon the Infinite. It affords a dualistic subject (me)/Object (God) distinction in order for me to relate myself to That. In the experience of that 'communion', of self and Self, there is a Realization that begins to arise in that small self. That Face that appears 'without' or 'above' or however you relate yourself to that, draws you up into Itself and you merge and become One with That. Expressions like "I and the Father are One", really make sense, but not in its mythological theologies about Jesus as the second person of the Trinity!! Rather a very real experience, a state of knowledge and Being that you and That are in Union. At such a point then that distinction begins to dissolve and there is no longer "I and the Father", but you are That. There is no longer the Father, there is no longer you as separate and distinct, but an Absolute Union. You are That.

 

"God" is the Face we put upon That, in whatever form God takes for us, and it takes many!!, in order to move the mind through its dualistic reality in order to relate the self to its True Identity, to come to know Itself. Yes, negation is right, deconstruction is right, but to me that happens naturally as you move through these 'levels' towards Realization. As a mind practice, its place is in breaking your holds on conceptual frameworks to 'jar' you into 'seeing' it. But ultimately, that exercise only works as you 'let go' and fall into that Being. That is the goal and purpose of all these practices. You have to release yourself into That. Then you 'see', you become what you already are, but currently are not seeing, not knowing within yourself. We awaken to what Is, by moving through and beyond our conceptual realities.

[LivingLife]

What Does God Need With a Starship?

 

That was a line from Startrek The Final Frontier. (no I am not a trekkie).

 

This is how I now frame this question.

 

"What need have I of a god?"

 

I have looked at all the exit strategies from monotheism and found them all wanting and merely a trade off for folk not willing to take the final step out of the madness pond and embrace atheism. Having admin'ed a UR board for 2+ years and then starting my own board with the questioners, I witnessed many deconversions but not all went the full hog. Many stopped at Pantheism.

 

Obviously my atheism stems from the xian exit and really had no desire to explore say islame or other eastern faiths. I think that the dismissal of biblegod can be applied to all god beliefs. When folk start redefining what god is, then so much gets lost in translation, furthermore, this approach anyway reaffirms my stance that all gods are imaginary and products of people's imaginations.

 

A universal god would not allow so much variance and would IMO reveal itself universally in ways that are almost identical if not identical. This is the consistency I expect of a god and like the babble says "god is not the author of confusion" - whoopsie to that statement.

[raoul]

George Carlin is my god. In fact, as an experiment I began praying to him for little things like finding a product in a supermarket. My prayers to him have been around the 50 percent success rate - on par with any other god including Joe Pesci and even Zeus.

[freeasabird]

I voted "No." I'm not an atheist, either. I tell people I'm a Theist-In-Waiting. I'll be more than happy to accept the idea of a god when the concept demonstrates the same characteristics of anything else I understand to be true, such as evidence and usefulness. Otherwise, it's an appealing fairy tale that happens to be popular. I place theism in the same category as conspiracy theories, cryptozoology, and psychic mediums: nonsense that gives people meaning to their lives where they would otherwise have none. More power to them, but I have better things to do with my time (like waste it on the Internet when I should be working).

 

Just as a point of clarification, this sounds like the misinformation that is common in religious circles. As I mentioned earlier, I do conceed that I consider myself a gnostic atheist. Nevertheless, the word atheist by itself just means you don't believe the god claims to be true. It's so hard because everyone seems to have their own definition on this, but most atheists are agnostic atheists. Even me being a gnostic leaning one, I would still accept evidence of a god, I've just never seen it. Being atheist for most doesn't mean you would never accept a god claim, it's just a conclusion based on the evidence currently available to you.

[Antlerman]

A universal god would not allow so much variance and would IMO reveal itself universally in ways that are almost identical if not identical.

This of course is expressing a totally dualistic, externalized conceptual God. That is nothing I accept. I agree with rejecting that view.

 

I think you mischaracterize what you call Eastern "Faith". Philosophy comes a lot closer to it.

 

Please don't take me wrong. I'm not at all feeling antagonistic when I ask this (that's far in the past for me now), but did you read what I wrote in response to your points from my point of view? It's interesting to me that this is what your response would be, that what you might have heard in what I wrote that you feel any of this would address any of that. That's fine if so, but it just means that it is easy for others to hear it the way you appear to have, when from my point of view we're talking about apples and oranges here. I understand what your perspective is and I share in in the way you are thinking about it. That's not what I see or think or understand or tried to express. I ask this for my own benefit of understanding how others might hear this.

 

 

P.S. Yes, those who experience the nondual do in fact express the same things, each in their own symbol sets. Fingers pointing to that single moon, to put it that way.

[par4dcourse]

I voted no. Let me expand on that: hell no, fuck no, and to express my mystic side, my magic 8 ball says no.

[LivingLife]

A universal god would not allow so much variance and would IMO reveal itself universally in ways that are almost identical if not identical.

This of course is expressing a totally dualistic, externalized conceptual God. That is nothing I accept. I agree with rejecting that view.

The problem here is also like what is being discussed as spirituality.

 

You missed the pertinent point in that the same logic used to dismiss biblegod can be used to dismiss all gods. They are all figments of man's imagination.

I think you mischaracterize what you call Eastern "Faith". Philosophy comes a lot closer to it.

I never got into too deep and merely listened to what folk had to say who had. There was zero need from my side to apply a replacement theology. Tossing unnecessary baggage negates the need to look for something else to get in to.

Please don't take me wrong. I'm not at all feeling antagonistic when I ask this (that's far in the past for me now), but did you read what I wrote in response to your points from my point of view? It's interesting to me that this is what your response would be, that what you might have heard in what I wrote that you feel any of this would address any of that. That's fine if so, but it just means that it is easy for others to hear it the way you appear to have, when from my point of view we're talking about apples and oranges here. I understand what your perspective is and I share in in the way you are thinking about it. That's not what I see or think or understand or tried to express. I ask this for my own benefit of understanding how others might hear this.it that way.

I am just commenting here and there on this thread. I am not trying to engage in a debate. When it comes to alternate religious discussions, it is like Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola. Both make good mixers with rum and are for all intents and purposes just "colas", the rum is the expensive stuff that actually has a decent taste, coke, meh, I can also use water and ice too

[Antlerman]

You missed the pertinent point in that the same logic used to dismiss biblegod can be used to dismiss all gods. They are all figments of man's imagination.

What seems the pertinent point is that this is true, if you define them in the way you do. That's why I asked if you were able to see or hear or even sense any difference in how I am speaking about this? A "figment of man's imagination" hardly applies to the points I made, or what others here have been making as well. I know to what you're referring, and with that I agree. This does not relate to that. Unless you can show how it does?

 

I never got into too deep and merely listened to what folk had to say who had. There was zero need from my side to apply a replacement theology. Tossing unnecessary baggage negates the need to look for something else to get in to.

I think how I hear this is that you were hearing it coming from a Western, Christian mindset. In which case, yes it would be just substituting different symbols, but in a context that is from a Christian point of view. The entire mindset is very different however. The meaning of the symbols is internalized in a very different way. The West externalizes all of these things, as outside ourselves, up there, in heaven, etc. The points I am saying and bringing up is that those are 'external expressions', of an internal reality. It is ultimately "in us", but that by no means translates into just a figment of imagination. A symbolic expression of the substance or essence of being is more accurate.

 

I am just commenting here and there on this thread. I am not trying to engage in a debate. When it comes to alternate religious discussions, it is like Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola. Both make good mixers with rum and are for all intents and purposes just "colas", the rum is the expensive stuff that actually has a decent taste, coke, meh, I can also use water and ice too

An interesting analogy. I kind of like it, but I would say in how I see it is that God is the rum, and religions are the different mixes. (Whereas the glass, the beverage, the person, the drink, the experience, the high, the stupor, the drunken sex, etc, would be the Godhead itself. ).

 

BTW, I don't view this as a debate, nor am I interested in that. I enjoy a healthy discussion from different points of view. Everyone gains in this.

[blackpudd1n]

I see no evidence for any deity, singular or plural. I am an atheist on the balance of probabilities, which I see being overwhlemingly against there being a deity. However, even if there is a deity, they don't seem to care that I pay it/them no attention, so either way, I just get on with my life, do my thing, and don't worry about it.

[mymistake]

That's why I asked if you were able to see or hear or even sense any difference in how I am speaking about this? A "figment of man's imagination" hardly applies to the points I made, or what others here have been making as well.

 

Okay, but what would? Aside from repeating it back in the exact order you put the words in I can't think of a way to talk about that stuff without offending those who believe it.

 

Unless you can show how it does?

 

Do you mean in a way that you will accept? If you do not accept the answer then won't you dismiss it as not relating or not understanding?

 

I think how I hear this is that you were hearing it coming from a Western, Christian mindset. In which case, yes it would be just substituting different symbols, but in a context that is from a Christian point of view. The entire mindset is very different however. The meaning of the symbols is internalized in a very different way. The West externalizes all of these things, as outside ourselves, up there, in heaven, etc. The points I am saying and bringing up is that those are 'external expressions', of an internal reality. It is ultimately "in us", but that by no means translates into just a figment of imagination. A symbolic expression of the substance or essence of being is more accurate.

 

Can you demonstrate there is a meaningful difference? Let's say John and Joe are sitting in different corners of a room. One is imagining things. The other is haveing a symbolic expression of the substance or essence of being. How could an observer tell the difference?

[raoul]

I see no evidence for any deity, singular or plural. I am an atheist on the balance of probabilities, which I see being overwhlemingly against there being a deity. However, even if there is a deity, they don't seem to care that I pay it/them no attention, so either way, I just get on with my life, do my thing, and don't worry about it.

Hey Pudd, you did it again! You voiced my thoughts better than I - thanks..

[Antlerman]

That's why I asked if you were able to see or hear or even sense any difference in how I am speaking about this? A "figment of man's imagination" hardly applies to the points I made, or what others here have been making as well.

 

Okay, but what would? Aside from repeating it back in the exact order you put the words in I can't think of a way to talk about that stuff without offending those who believe it.

What wouldn't to be to speak to the recognition of those difference, and specifically speak to the differences. But what I normally see happen is basically a blurring together of them into one point of view, namely the Christian West idea of God, as all understanding of God. It presupposes that one point of view as THE point of view. Inasmuch as I know that point of viewed, had that point of view, shared that point of view I know what it is. And I know what this is, and knowing what this is, which I'm speaking about I am able to say it's an apples to oranges comparison. Someone who has never shared that other point of view, will doubtless only be able to process it through what they know, so a discussion may in fact not be possible.

 

Is it possible to articulate those differences sufficiently so that some can see the differences? I don't suppose it's that easy actually. It really does require a certain shift in how one interprets the world.

 

 

[mymistake]

Is it possible to articulate those differences sufficiently so that some can see the differences? I don't suppose it's that easy actually. It really does require a certain shift in how one interprets the world.

 

And that more or less sums up why I am done with religion.

[Antlerman]

Is it possible to articulate those differences sufficiently so that some can see the differences? I don't suppose it's that easy actually. It really does require a certain shift in how one interprets the world.

 

And that more or less sums up why I am done with religion.

I'm not sure I follow. Obviously, for someone like me there is a benefit gained though expanding understanding. Surely you have expanded your perceptions to allow to be where you are now. What's the difference?

[mymistake]

Is it possible to articulate those differences sufficiently so that some can see the differences? I don't suppose it's that easy actually. It really does require a certain shift in how one interprets the world.

 

And that more or less sums up why I am done with religion.

I'm not sure I follow. Obviously, for someone like me there is a benefit gained though expanding understanding. Surely you have expanded your perceptions to allow to be where you are now. What's the difference?

 

When I studied math there was a system that was internally consistent. The deeper I went into math the harder it was to understand; that is to say the more work and pain it required. However each block fit. Once I understood it I could see how it relates to reality as well as the other blocks. You can use an anti-derivative to figure out the amount of glass it would take to make a cup.

 

In contrast I found Star Trek both fun and easy. Fans demand so much of the material that an army of writers have tried to explore the fictional science of that setting. And if you watch it enough you will pick up some basic rules. The Federation uses quantum torpedoes but not disrupters. But nearly anything can have an emitter, an array or an emitter array. However these blocks in the Trek fiction do not relate to the real world. There is no phased, trans-warp plasma emitter array.

 

When you explore duality is it more like exploring anti-derivatives or more like exploring emitter arrays?