How can a person be sure that they have made the right decision about God?

[Doreen]

Thank you, I think this is a very useful suggestion!
This way, the terms of communication will be clear to the person I am communicating with, and more importantly, to me.

Good, I'm glad it seemed that way. I had to rush off when I posted that. I am sure it was pretty obvious to you what I meant. But, in any case, I was thinking of presenting, early on in the communication, the concerns you've presented here about the possible negative consequences of the communication itself. This is fair warning, and it also places the issues you have in a context that is less likely to trigger defensive reactions. It also calls, possibly out of hiding, the compassionate and receptive portions of many people.

 

[Doreen]

Now that I think of it again, you are probably right. Years back, I even took up long distance running in order to make myself appear more earnest, to get a more even facial expression (although my joints soon made it clear to me that I wasn't going to make it very far). Because I basically have only two facial expressions that I rapidly switch between - that of a small child, and that of a chronically depressed adult. I think this is quite confusing for some people.

I think I could have been clearer. You are very clearly, here, trying to find an abstract, mental set of tools or criteria to make decisions with. I do see you making this choice. It's just that you also show strong emotions and passion related to the issues.

Further some people hear the ideas of a system and align themselves with those ideas. To me Buddhism, for example, is fairly coherent and non-self-contradictory. It may not be correct, but it works as a set of ideas, I think. Many people come in contact or are already in a system and they simply align everything - or seem to - in themselves with the ideas. And if something is not aligned, they simply strive to align that rebellious portion of themselves. So they can present a unified front and generally speak with certainty about both the beliefs and their own certainty. You may have tried to do this, but it seems to me that even when the ideas have seemed coherent, you could not simply Yoke yourself to them - to use the metaphor in the word yoga. Somehow the bull kept getting free. I think people who really are, primarily, very mental, can yoke their bulls - and often have no idea what all the trouble is with those who cannot.

I'm not so sure about that. As far as I know, he drinks real milk, pretty much every day, the sort of milk that smells and tastes of exactly what the cow ate. In my experience, already this does something to a person, makes a lightness of one's being.

I didn't understand this.

Perhaps I interpret people's non-verbal and not directly intended attitudes more gravely than you. To me, the tone of their voice, their posture, etc. all form part of their argument. So I often perceive there are inconsistencies in their argument, and I get easily confused.
It seems I simply pick up the non-verbal very intensely.

Well, you may do this more than me, but I do this more than almost anyone I know. And frankly this could be a very interesting thread on the kinds of body language, etc., one encounters in the various traditions. I am guessing that a difference between us is I felt promised something by the traditions and by the taking on the role of expert and to a greater degree I felt comfortable holding these experts to that promise. And, in my experience, they tended to act as if they expected themselves to also. At least I met some who did in each of the major traditions - if you include Sufiism as a portion of Islam.

I was raised in the old-fasioned country. I don't sit down when visiting someone unless told or if I myself ask for permission. That alone probably says a lot.
In person, I have enormous concerns over decency and politeness. I automatically feel guilty if I shift into the analytical mood. And I am sick of feeling this guilt.

Yes, that's a good example. I generally asked my questions, when questions were invited. Most people, however, would ask questions, presuming that the system would work for them. So 'where to I place my hands when chanting' or ' how can I feel _______________ (whomever) in my heart' rather than some of my concerns about what did not feel good or what I could not understand or do myself or what seemed even immoral about what I was being told.

I tend to think that I need to be happy and content with whatever there is, no matter how bad I may think it is - "It should be enough for me, I shouldn't ask for more".

Which is a dualism between how the inner and the outer are treated.

I now also think this being inverted comes with feeling obligated to open myself to other people and to answer their questions on their terms, do everything on their terms. Also, from forum discussions - I am here after all discussing my internals in front of what is actually a wide audience.

Yes, and we just got slapped for it. A perfect example of how real issues can be treated with disdain and, really, cruelty.

Recently, I was directed to a blog written by a sannyasi who had a falldown, but was allowed to stay in the organization, partly keep his status but otherwise has to keep a low profile. He writes daily entries about his spiritual practice, in painful detail about his problems with chanting, ill health and such.
This has actually been by far the most instructive experience from the tradition that I am investigating.

Interesting!

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Yes, and we just got slapped for it. A perfect example of how real issues can be treated with disdain and, really, cruelty.

Oh poor sophisticated Doreen! :bawl:

If you want a tete a tete therapy session between yourself and ONE other member then you go to PM so you can sooth poor Signal's wavering doubts. That's what I do when I want to seriously address something with another member. This isn't your god damn living room Doreen.

Thanks for the PM. What's funny is that that would have been something that should have been posted on the open board while you're bleeding heart analysis kept off the board. You think you know who we all really are here in this web 2.0 interface? You're analysis of things, floating on the surface as they do, are what exactly? Proof of your depth? Of your 'kindness'? You think you have the insight to know who's naughty and who is nice? And who is...cReul?


Get over yourself!

I actually respect Signal enough to treat him as someone with a lick of sense and the ability to take it on the chin in all honesty, he's not a child in need of protection from the big bad world. If he didn't want criticism from the hoi polloi he wouldn't post in an open forum.

Funny that.

 

[wynn]

Awww, Jane Austen, here we come!

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Awww, Jane Austen, here we come!

Leave Jane out of this. She had a rough enough time as it was living out her romantic life in her novels.

Mind you she wasn't a wilting flower outside her novels as she once wrote in a private letter:


"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal."

 

[wynn]

I'm not so sure about that. As far as I know, he drinks real milk, pretty much every day, the sort of milk that smells and tastes of exactly what the cow ate. In my experience, already this does something to a person, makes a lightness of one's being.

I didn't understand this.

You said that "the strenght of the mental/abstract faculty is, in his case, overriding the experience/perception of anomalies and problems".
I don't think this is necessarily so.

My point was that a person's diet can significantly change the way they interact with the world otherwise.
Things that, for example, a meat eater might be bothered by, a vegetarian isn't. It is all more or less individual too.
Perhaps this is the case with him, and it seems quite likely.

Or perhaps LG is just "too male" to relate to some people's problems.

Or perhaps he does relate to their problems, but refuses to make this clear for some reason. Perhaps because he knows better than going down some roads.

I have reason to believe any of the above could be the case, and not necessarily him simply being a more saddle than horse.

 

[sifreak21]

Do you believe there are many Gods?

if there in fact is a god how do we know what one is right? what if the catholic god and christian gods are frauds and the 100 lustful ladies waiting for you if you blow yourself up is the real god?

there is many religions so if there IS a god what one is the real/right one

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

if there in fact is a god how do we know what one is right? what if the catholic god and christian gods are frauds and the 100 lustful ladies waiting for you if you blow yourself up is the real god?

there is many religions so if there IS a god what one is the real/right one

Since all religions are structured ideologies of how one should live in the world, and how one should think of life in the world, based on traditional mythology there is no question of which one is wrong or right, they are neither. All mythologies and the religious beliefs that come out of them are imposed on reality, they are not reality itself so they are fictions but even a fiction can serve a purpose. They are all fictions designed to align people to themselves and the world around them which was the initial role of myth and some people evidently need this. Religions and ideas of god are culturally hinged, most people do not 'search' for religion but are born into a society that has these beliefs already built in. To say they are all frauds is to say there is a deception involved leading to benefits like power, control or monetary gain. These religions are only fraudulent if there is knowing deception, meaning that those who found and propagate the beliefs really do not believe in its veracity (like scientology). All religions will have aspects of fraud but that in itself doesn't discount its validity with those who are firm believers.

God on the other hand can be believed without adhering to any particular religion. For example I have met people who believe in god but do not belong to any organized or cult religion or particular belief system. They seem to think that 'god' exists out there 'somewhere'.

So take your pick: eeny meeny miny moe; its a smorgasbord and any one of them can fulfill your needs if you have a need for this particular kind of fix.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: How can I be sure I've made the right decision?

No one has ever come back, even in ghostly form and talked, that there was a heaven or a hell. I question those folks who have come back from a NDE and seen what they described is heaven-like. I think that has to do with chemicals in the brain. I don't buy their stories as truth.

I also don't buy the myth of christianity. If everything they say is true, like the actual transubstantiation of the body and blood of a mythical character, his actual death and resurrection, but it cannot be substantiated as fact, I can't buy the idea of heaven or hell.

If christians would allow themselves to think about it for a minute, without the fear of eternal damnation, they might realize the joke has been on them.

It's really not that hard to come to the right decision. When that happens, one just realizes that this life is the most important thing to do, and not wait for some promised hereafter.

 

[lightgigantic]

*************
M*W: How can I be sure I've made the right decision?

No one has ever come back, even in ghostly form and talked, that there was a heaven or a hell. I question those folks who have come back from a NDE and seen what they described is heaven-like. I think that has to do with chemicals in the brain. I don't buy their stories as truth.

I also don't buy the myth of christianity. If everything they say is true, like the actual transubstantiation of the body and blood of a mythical character, his actual death and resurrection, but it cannot be substantiated as fact, I can't buy the idea of heaven or hell.

If christians would allow themselves to think about it for a minute, without the fear of eternal damnation, they might realize the joke has been on them.

It's really not that hard to come to the right decision. When that happens, one just realizes that this life is the most important thing to do, and not wait for some promised hereafter.

actually MW has a point here

If there is a greater world that renders this one but a shadow, one would expect that abiding by ideals that grant passage there to substantiate one's existence - not diminish it.

Problems ensue of course when one's values are encapsulated by incongruent values ... a prime example being accepting the material body as the final last word in determining all issues of selfhood

IOW its the very nature of some values to be completely unable to make the distance for a satisfactory existence.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

It's really not that hard to come to the right decision. When that happens, one just realizes that this life is the most important thing to do, and not wait for some promised hereafter.

They are not the only ones living this life for the promise of some 'thereafter'.

 

[wynn]

If there is a greater world that renders this one but a shadow, one would expect that abiding by ideals that grant passage there to substantiate one's existence - not diminish it.

But how can one know, in advance, which those ideals are that grant passage to that greater world?

Problems ensue of course when one's values are encapsulated by incongruent values ... a prime example being accepting the material body as the final last word in determining all issues of selfhood

But questioning the body as the final last word in determining all issues of selfhood doesn't also automatically answer what is it that has the final last word in determining all issues of selfhood.

Similarly, it is easy enough to realize we are not in charge of our lives or the Universe, but realizing this doesn't yet make us realize that it is God who is in charge.

In other words, we do have the power to deconstruct, and quite reasonably so, net-neti is well within our reach. But as far as I can see, we do not have the power to construct or ascend. This is where choosing the right revealed/descended religion/philosophy comes in.

IOW its the very nature of some values to be completely unable to make the distance for a satisfactory existence.

Sure, and this reasoning seems perfectly correct - in the abstract.

But if we first have to agree that we are in illusion to begin with, how can we possibly make any progress from there?

For example, ideally, should we not read scriptures in a mood of "but I am in illusion and don't actually understand any of what I have just heard or read"?
And if not, why not?


It seems to me that you are basing your whole argument on common sense, on the presumption that we are not so completely in illusion that we would be exempt from doing anything right; but that instead, we are in possession of a capacity to "get things right", at least to some extent, even in our conditioned, fallen, illiusioned state.

For some reason, you do not take the charge of being in illusion, nor neti-neti to their final logical consequences.

 

[wynn]

It's really not that hard to come to the right decision. When that happens, one just realizes that this life is the most important thing to do, and not wait for some promised hereafter.

For example, going to bed in the evening and hoping that one will wake up rested, is an instance of waiting for some promised hereafter.
Taking up a course at college is an instance of waiting for some promised hereafter.

We are "waiting for some promised hereafter" all the time, the difference is only in what time-span we take into consideration - whether it is one minute, one hour, one day, one week, one year, ten years, a hundred years, a thousand years ...

 

[Medicine*Woman]

For example, going to bed in the evening and hoping that one will wake up rested, is an instance of waiting for some promised hereafter.
Taking up a course at college is an instance of waiting for some promised hereafter.

We are "waiting for some promised hereafter" all the time, the difference is only in what time-span we take into consideration - whether it is one minute, one hour, one day, one week, one year, ten years, a hundred years, a thousand years ...

*************
M*W: When I go to bed, the only hope I have is going to sleep. I don't think about waking up, just going to sleep. When I wake-up, I think about my day ahead. I only think about tomorrow or some day in the future that I have something I have to do. I don't think about the future except when I think about my children, grandchildren or great granchildren. I don't think any further than that. But that's just me. I've had a stroke and two heart attacks. I have congestive heart failure, and my heart works at only 50%. So, I don't think that far ahead, and I don't think about a promised hereafter. I shed all that christian false facade years ago. I'll just be glad to see tomorrow, and to have the ability to write on Sciforums.

 

[lightgigantic]

*************
M*W: When I go to bed, the only hope I have is going to sleep. I don't think about waking up, just going to sleep.

so regardless of your fatigue levels, whether you anticipate being able to sleep for 8 hours or 8 minutes, its a complete non-issue?

When I wake-up, I think about my day ahead. I only think about tomorrow or some day in the future that I have something I have to do. I don't think about the future except when I think about my children, grandchildren or great granchildren. I don't think any further than that. But that's just me.

or more specifically, that's your "hereafter"

I've had a stroke and two heart attacks. I have congestive heart failure, and my heart works at only 50%. So, I don't think that far ahead, and I don't think about a promised hereafter.

If you adopt preventative measures to avoid a second stroke and a third heart attack, you think further ahead than what you allude

I shed all that christian false facade years ago. I'll just be glad to see tomorrow, and to have the ability to write on Sciforums.

well, I guess we all need something, eh?

 

[lightgigantic]

But how can one know, in advance, which those ideals are that grant passage to that greater world?

the same way as any other issue sof application that promises an outcome - we develop an appropriate level of faith in those who have already applied themselves and inquire from them submissively

But questioning the body as the final last word in determining all issues of selfhood doesn't also automatically answer what is it that has the final last word in determining all issues of selfhood.

Similarly, it is easy enough to realize we are not in charge of our lives or the Universe, but realizing this doesn't yet make us realize that it is God who is in charge.

sure
these things are just first base

In other words, we do have the power to deconstruct, and quite reasonably so, net-neti is well within our reach. But as far as I can see, we do not have the power to construct or ascend. This is where choosing the right revealed/descended religion/philosophy comes in.

kind of like clarifying butter.

If you don't know what is a waste product (or what it "isn't"), there's no prospect of making ghee

Sure, and this reasoning seems perfectly correct - in the abstract.

But if we first have to agree that we are in illusion to begin with, how can we possibly make any progress from there?

For example, ideally, should we not read scriptures in a mood of "but I am in illusion and don't actually understand any of what I have just heard or read"?
And if not, why not?

but not to the point of "since I can't understand at all it makes no difference whether we read them or not" ... actually generally you would expect one to think like that if they mess up on application (which more often than not, is a fault carried through from the point of theory ..... at least as far as "doable practices are concerned)

It seems to me that you are basing your whole argument on common sense, on the presumption that we are not so completely in illusion that we would be exempt from doing anything right; but that instead, we are in possession of a capacity to "get things right", at least to some extent, even in our conditioned, fallen, illiusioned state.

If there was no potential to get out of illusion, there would be no point discussing it

For some reason, you do not take the charge of being in illusion, nor neti-neti to their final logical consequences.

the logical consequence of such things is bewilderment at worst and a vague idea at best.

For instance suppose one was trying to determine whose one's parents are simply by drawing a list of who isn't ....

 

[Doreen]

You said that "the strenght of the mental/abstract faculty is, in his case, overriding the experience/perception of anomalies and problems".
I don't think this is necessarily so.

My point was that a person's diet can significantly change the way they interact with the world otherwise.
Things that, for example, a meat eater might be bothered by, a vegetarian isn't. It is all more or less individual too.
Perhaps this is the case with him, and it seems quite likely.

Or perhaps LG is just "too male" to relate to some people's problems.

Or perhaps he does relate to their problems, but refuses to make this clear for some reason. Perhaps because he knows better than going down some roads.

I have reason to believe any of the above could be the case, and not necessarily him simply being a more saddle than horse.

Could be.

 

[Doreen]

Oh poor sophisticated Doreen! :bawl:

If you want a tete a tete therapy session between yourself and ONE other member then you go to PM so you can sooth poor Signal's wavering doubts. That's what I do when I want to seriously address something with another member. This isn't your god damn living room Doreen.

I PMed you because what I wrote in the PM was off topic. I was not trying to 'soothe Signal's wavering doubts'. I can't see where you got this impression at all. I was on-topic, relating my experiences with a number of religions and traditions and making suggestions directly related to the title and OP. Some of my suggestions might very well lead to increasing Signal's doubts about a religion. In fact I made a specific point saying that I wasn't only trying to increase Signal's doubts or problems with different traditions. I wonder if you actually understood at all what I wrote. Not that I think you should or have some obligation to, but when you classify what I wrote so incorrectly in a post critical of it, it makes your criticisms seem irrelevent.

Thanks for the PM. What's funny is that that would have been something that should have been posted on the open board while you're bleeding heart analysis kept off the board.

Again. My PMs were not on topic and, in fact, like your PMs to me, they violated forum rules for public posting. To me posts should be on topic. I certainly go off topic at times, but I knew my PM to you could not even be considered a tangent. This post of yours that I am responding to has nothing to do with the topic and is all about me (and what Signal is like as a person). And not about me in relation to how I might be more sure of my decision about God. I hope from here on out things will be more on topic.

You think you know who we all really are here in this web 2.0 interface? You're analysis of things, floating on the surface as they do, are what exactly? Proof of your depth? Of your 'kindness'? You think you have the insight to know who's naughty and who is nice? And who is...cReul?

It seemed from your post here and your PMs you seemed to think you know me. And here Signal also. I'll leave you with these questions to contemplate yourself.

To put this in the context of the OP. Signal was asking how one can be certain one has made the right decision about God. My posts were my best attempt to relate my experiences in relation this and also to give some feedback about what might be a practical approach to acheiving greater certainty.

Precisely because my experiences were different, partially, from Signal's, and, possibly, some of my assumptions, I approached the issue in a personal way. It is a religion forum and experiences related to religion seem relevent to me. Call me crazy. Some of this dialogue involved ideas about what is acceptable to present to a religious person, especially official representatives of religions. I presented my reasons for thinking that certain ideas Signal had might not hold as generalities or universalisms.

The type of dialogue I had here with Signal may not come up again. But then again, it may. I can only suggest that if you feel the posts are inappropriate you can report them or not read them.

If you have more to say, here, about me, I will ignore it as off topic.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Oh shut up Doreen.

Go and find a playmate or something, I'm more than done with you and your unsolicited private messages. You are free to ignore my posts all together. Capiche? What I will not do is alter anything for the likes of you. Now shoo...

 

[wynn]

Interesting discussion dynamics!


Doreen seems to come from the position that the discussion of the thread topic should be allowed to take place in front of a public - making the right deicision about God is after all not only the person's own business, but concerns others as well.

Lucysnow, on the other hand, seems to come from the position that this is not the case, but is instead entirely individualistic and private.

They have markedly different ontologies and epistemologies for arriving at certainty about religious/spiritual issues.


If arriving at certainty about religious/spiritual issues is to be considered individualistic and private - then such an approach limits the person to whatever they currently know and have available, thus effectively cutting them off from anyone who may have a better insight into their problem. This is definitely a drawback.

If arriving at certainty about religious/spiritual issues is to be considered a (more or less) public matter - then such an approach exposes the seeking person to a great number of influences, some of which may be helpful, some harmful. But without opening oneself like that, one will likely remain stuck, uncertain and unhappy.

Which is better? Both options have their advantages and disadvantages.



Here's a quote for you, Lucy:

And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.