Sometimes that enquiry can be used as a diversion, to waste time, by those who have no regard for God or religion, other than to denigrate it. They are anti-God/theist.
Agreed. But I wouldn't venture to judge for others when they do that, only for myself.
For someone who grew up within Christianity, this is a perfectly reasonable line of inquiry.
But not for someone who has an intense disliking for it.
I agree, of course. Perhaps I am taking my plea for compassion too far. But when I look at many adamant atheists, it seems that merely speaking about God to them is like pouring salt onto their open wounds, or that they are like lepers who in the agony of their pain cauterize their skin and seek those who would do it for them. It's irrational behavior, but from the perspective of the leper, it makes sense.
So if they both say God is the One Supreme Original Cause, then why think it refers to a different being? Why not think it is the one God, pertaining to a different time, place and circumstance?
I haven't thought about it this way much.
Of course what you are saying makes sense.
But I am after all, a Westerner brought up to think in different terms, certainly not to think in terms of rebirth, many lifetimes, many cycles, many planes of existence. - Not that I advocate the Western position, I'm just explaining my first reaction.
Here is a good example of how not just anything can be taught to just anyone: In some Buddhist traditions, practitioners can take the vow to not teach emptiness to the untrained. The topic of emptiness and proper understanding of it is deemed as so important in those traditions that a specific vow exists about it. Even though emptiness is one of the central topics in Buddhism.
I don't understand what you mean.
Perhaps if you quickly explain "emptiness", I may get more of an overall idea of your point.
There are many explanations for what "emptiness" means. One that might be most pertinent here is this - "I am not my thoughts, nor my feelings, nor my words, nor my body, nor my actions". Normally, people identify with their thoughts etc., thinking "This is who I am". But according to some karmic doctrines (like in Buddhism), such identification is misleading, wrong. To understand this, one must be prepared to do so; because in untrained people, being taught emptiness can lead them to hold nihilistic and other harmful views, and then to harmful actions. Out of concern for preventing unncecessary suffering, there is the notion that the topic of emptiness must be handled with care.
I am thinking that some teachings about God are in this manner similar - an untrained person will be prone to misunderstand them and react with negativity, whereby this negativity does not necessarily have something to do with God.
For example, if I just read the Bible, anywhere, great anger arises in me. I couldn't say whether it is anger against God, or against Christianity, or what - it's just an intense negative emotion that overwhelms me.
Now, for some theists, this doesn't matter, and they insist that I keep studying the Bible despite the anger. But it matters to me. I don't want to be angry, and I know all too well that when I am angry, I can't think straight; when I am angry, I can't discern what would be for my benefit and the benefit of others.
Some kind of "desensitization therapy" where I would deliberately expose myself to the Bible with the intent to desensitize myself and not get angry anymore has so far lead to enormous stress, it didn't seem to be worth it.
Do you think there are Christians who say the same thing, and behave accordingly? If yes, what does that tell you?
There might be such Christians. I just haven't met any yet.
Then look into other philosophy, unless you think western philosophy is the dog's-bollocks (the best/only one).
I am looking into other philosophies. But I have a lot of mental baggage, and this tends to react meanly when met with anything new or poked at. So I constantly need to work on my attitude to my spiritual search as far as other philosophies and dealing with my baggage are concerned, and I at the same time somehow provide myself with enough peace of mind to be able to do that in the first place. Frankly, it's tedious.
You have no idea, but you have decided that you are not a theist, but an atheist in some capacity. Is this position definate, and if so, why?
I said elsewhere that the most adequate description of my state would be that I neither believe nor disbelieve in God, and this isn't the same as the weak agnostic's "I don't know" or the strong agnostic's "It can't be known". For me, the terms "I", "believing" and "God" are so multi-facetted, undefined or feel so foreign in my mind that saying either "I believe in God" or "I don't believe in God" simply don't seem to apply.
For some practical purposes, by some theists and by some atheists, I might be called "atheist", although I don't identify with that label.
Sometimes, I think I was taught emptiness to soon, this is why I am now left with so much confusion. Namely, Western philosophical relativism, constructivism and deconstructivism -which I have a long-standing background in- do teach a form of emptiness.
