To theists: How do you distinguish between reality and wishful thinking?

[greenberg]

Therefore you could say that the first issue for discerning notions of god is to have a good grounding in theory - namely what words like "god" actually mean and what is the job description of authentic practitioners - then one has a proper footing for applying one's discrimination

Sure, this makes sense.

But there are numerous theisms in this world, each of them purporting to be the only right one.
So what is a person to do? Whose theory to learn? There surely is not enough time in one lifetime for a proper study of all of them.
Nor does it seem feasible to take these things lightly, as if it were a hobby.

 

[Grantywanty]

Agreed. I'm taking a break from that real work, having run at an impasse.

It was a disclaimer on my part.

Other than that, it seems many theists IRL and here online do not realize the sort of credence people like myself are willing to give them - they take it for granted. This says a lot about the worth of (their) theism.

Perhaps the former, not necessarily the latter. There are some advocates of pretty much every possible belief who are intolerable and confused. Though I suppose if you take their interpersonal skills and their assumptions as being a part of their belief system then perhaps it does. It just might not be the same in other members of the same congregation.

Of course. But sometimes I fear that there is nothing but conditioning, nothing but training. That conditioning is all there is to "us".

My experience is there is so much it certainly seems endless at times. (I believe in reincarnation, so for me the condition process has been going on for a long time) And then another part of me wants to say that while I do experience things that do not seem conditioned, I still encounter too much conditioning in myself.

Consider that people worldwide believe in Jesus and that he will save them. But if anyone were to say they saw Jesus, those same people would probably call him a heretic and put him in a mental institution ...

Absolutely.

Discussing philosophical and spiritual issues is often a futile, alienating and embittering endeavor, esp. in real life. That's why I don't like to do it all that much, considering the negative consequences (even lawsuits).

I can only promise that I personally will not sue you or try to get you committed. Perhaps I am naive about lawsuits. I am an unlikely target of one.
I am not sure how far you can get discussing. If you are not attracted to any of the religions or spiritualities there is not much you can do. But there are so many and so many small ones. If you meet someone who you respect or you hear of a practice that you are curious about you could begin to move into experience. Slowly and with bouts of skepticism or not really feeling anything or whatever came up.

I think so too. There is the "presentable official position" and then there's the true chaotic state of a mind. But some people don't seem to suffer from this dichotomy. This is one more reason that motivated me to start a thread like this.

Oh, they suffer from it. Unfortunately their ecology of maintenance also causes others to suffer from it. I think behind a lot of conversion arguments or arguemnts between athiests and believers is using the other person to be a part of themselves they are no longer in contact with. If they can mock, out argue be morally better than the other person then they have that part of themselves under control. Crusades and witch hunts are extreme versions of this. They are hiding from their own doubts. From themselves first if they can. (for example: the flat assumption by athiests that their positions are not there because of their emotional needs and temperments ((and even skills)) I find amazing)

I started out generally, and then gave a person example in 1st person.
If the reality vs. imagination distinction is real, then I suppose it should make no difference whether a phenomenon is stated in 1st person or generally.
In the teachings given by theists, there often is no difference supposed when saying "If a person ..." and "If I ..." It seems they expect that their teaching applies objectively.

In the abstract perhaps. But in a conversation it makes a world of difference. I think there is something just bang wrong about the idea that this can be done like a chess game with words. It is a conversation between two people (or more) and the experiences, intentions, openness, awareness, introspective ability, desire and so on all play very deep parts in what happens. And even then a conversation can only do a little. Especially one in this disembodied format.

But since you are a pantheist, this thread might not be suitably formulated for you. Before I posted this thread, I didn't think of the possibility of a pantheist responding, so I formulated things more in line with monotheistic views.

It still seemed applicable. I mean beliefs, wishful thinking, imagination, reality. I wonder about those things in relation to myself and did before you raised the issue here.

You could also call me a pagan.

There's a popular mantra: Don't believe everything you think.

Thank God I don't believe some of the things I think.

But my gut feeling doesn't help me when it comes to issues about God; my gut feeling remains undecided on the matter.

OK It seemed like you had a concern about what your gut feeling might develop into. Maybe I read it wrong. Exploration involving your physical self is going to be involved in this process if you are going to move off your version of an agnostic position. I am not saying you should. It sounds like you have a desire to do that, though.

My gut feeling is really mostly only about things like what food I'd like to eat, what breathing feels good, whether I should adjust the position of my body ...

I doubt that. I would guess you have a lot of gut reactions to a lot of people, actions, events and so on. And by the way, I am not saying gut reactions are always right, far from it. But you can develop a healthier or friendlier relationship between gut reactions and all that wordy shit in the mind. You can gain knowledge about when you are reacting because of past experiences and training and when you are reacting to the present. I know this does not offer proof of this, me saying it, but I am trying to get across that I have had many of the thoughts you say here and I found a way to move to feeling comfortable with less agnostic positions, primarily through experiencing 'religions' directly, rejecting a lot of what they were doing or saying, but through religious practices (in the broadest sense) coupled with psychological exploration (alone, with others) coming to understand more what I was doing emotionally mentally at a given moment.

When it comes to abstract concepts, my gut feeling tends to say "grey" and "muck". And it's really alienating, I feel so foreign and misplaced in comparison to other people who seem to be so swift and clear in dealing with concepts.
Really, my primary reaction (but which I usually don't show) to a question like "Does God exist?" is a blank, dumb stare.

I think there are a lot of agnostics, taking that term broadly. What you are taking a break from sounded like academic work, there must be people with mixed beliefs in that world.

"Does God exist?" is really not a worthy question to mull over. It is like you are outside wondering for decades if the lake water in front of you is cold or hot. Of course the weakness of that analogy is how easy it is to test the water temp, but the standing on the shore wondering mentally is still as useless.

You are a particular person. With particular interests, tendencies, desires, pet peeves, dislikes. If you are someone who right now would never bow down to a God - perhaps you are angry about the way the world is - well, Muslim practices are not a good choice right now. If you like nature or singing, well there are religions and practices that make each or both of these central. You get what I mean. We don't learn so much being outside.
And I am not making a case for going to the phone book and picking out a religion. You could take up meditating or shamanistic practicies on your own. Whatever. But your particular interests and feelings and desires are central to this. And if you don't have these right now, well, maybe it's time for you to just have a good time and get out of your head for a while in less all encompassing ways. Maybe you are avoiding dealing with a lack of sex because it is easier to feel hopeless about finding out if there is a God or not then confronting what actually scares you more: women (or men) don't find you sexually attractive. (or whatever. this was not meant as a jab. I am being serious. I think a lot of philosophy is avoidance)

Thank you.

Your welcome.

And by the way. I am aware I post this to you that many of the things I am saying to you I need to hear myself. Sometimes I can get caught in a phase where I have no overview. One thing comes up. Then another. Many problems. I can see it as a part of some developing process. That I have changed or why I am doing the things I am doing. So in working out my answers to your questions here I ending up saying things I hadn't quite consciously thought and were good for me to hear myself. And I could feel that or experience it that way as I wrote the responses.

 

[Adstar]

that is absurd. Accepting is bad if you accept something bad. Rejecting is good if you reject something aweful.

It is manipulative to tell someone that accepting is good in a general way.

Did i use the terms Good and Bad in the summation???????????????????????

No i used the words Positive and Negative.

Next time read what i say before trying to shove words into my mouth that i never said..



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Grantywanty]

Did i use the terms Good and Bad in the summation???????????????????????

No i used the words Positive and Negative.

Next time read what i say before trying to shove words into my mouth that i never said..



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

OK. I reread your post, which has a number of oddly written parts, and I can see that you might not have meant what I said. Positive and negative often have the connotations of good and bad. I can't say I am sure, even now, after a second read, but I can see that you might not have meant positive and negative in value terms.

And just so we are clear.
YOu did not mean that accepting, in general, is a positive (as in a good) thing to do AND
rejecting, in general, is a negative (as in bad) thing to do.

Is that correct?

You do acknowledge that rejecting can be a positive or moral or good thing to do and that accepting can be the opposite. In fact they are neutral terms.

 

[greenberg]

Perhaps the former, not necessarily the latter. There are some advocates of pretty much every possible belief who are intolerable and confused. Though I suppose if you take their interpersonal skills and their assumptions as being a part of their belief system then perhaps it does. It just might not be the same in other members of the same congregation.

Of course. But as far as Christianity is concerned, it has consistently been my experience that their interpersonal skills and their assumptions are apparently a part of their belief system.

My experience is there is so much it certainly seems endless at times. (I believe in reincarnation, so for me the condition process has been going on for a long time) And then another part of me wants to say that while I do experience things that do not seem conditioned, I still encounter too much conditioning in myself.

All I can say is that the Buddha better be right. Or I don't know what I'll do.

I am not sure how far you can get discussing.

It can help, tremendously. Sometimes, the input of another person is just what one needs to figure out one's situation.

Oh, they suffer from it. Unfortunately their ecology of maintenance also causes others to suffer from it. I think behind a lot of conversion arguments or arguemnts between athiests and believers is using the other person to be a part of themselves they are no longer in contact with. If they can mock, out argue be morally better than the other person then they have that part of themselves under control. Crusades and witch hunts are extreme versions of this. They are hiding from their own doubts. From themselves first if they can.

That's interesting. I've never thought of it that way.

In the abstract perhaps. But in a conversation it makes a world of difference. I think there is something just bang wrong about the idea that this can be done like a chess game with words. It is a conversation between two people (or more) and the experiences, intentions, openness, awareness, introspective ability, desire and so on all play very deep parts in what happens.

I agree. But such a stance pretty much undermines the validity of proselytizing. - But I don't know, perhaps the theists are right, perhaps I am evil and in denial and believing in God is actually really simple. I can't shake that thought.

... if you are going to move off your version of an agnostic position. I am not saying you should. It sounds like you have a desire to do that, though.

Like I said elsewhere, (strong) agnosticism is a nightmare to live in.
So, of course, I wish to move off of it.

My gut feeling is really mostly only about things like what food I'd like to eat, what breathing feels good, whether I should adjust the position of my body ...

I doubt that. I would guess you have a lot of gut reactions to a lot of people, actions, events and so on.

I need to make myself more clear - The gut reactions that I trust are mostly only the ones regarding the body. Other gut reactions I don't trust, but am capable of doubting them on and on.
It's only with things like the breath, heartbeat and so on that agnosticism's grip loosens up a bit.

You could take up meditating or shamanistic practicies on your own.

I've been doing some Buddhist meditation and studying, for a couple of years. One of the practices is concentrating on the body in and of itself as a frame of reference. Since I am an amateur athlete, that's home territory.

I was thinking about joining a Buddhist group, investigated, but all the ones available struck me as too liberal, too Christian, too Western, too far away from what the Suttas teach, so I decided not to join - and they weren't particularly thrilled to have me anyway ...

Whatever. But your particular interests and feelings and desires are central to this. And if you don't have these right now, well, maybe it's time for you to just have a good time and get out of your head for a while in less all encompassing ways. Maybe you are avoiding dealing with a lack of sex because it is easier to feel hopeless about finding out if there is a God or not then confronting what actually scares you more: women (or men) don't find you sexually attractive. (or whatever. this was not meant as a jab. I am being serious. I think a lot of philosophy is avoidance)

I don't want to feel terrorized and all confused anymore whenever a Mormon, Jehowa's Witness, Born Again Christian or some such other knocks on my door or I come across them some other way, like in the street, in a social circle, in a film or TV ad.
I hate how a few words from these people throw me off completely. It's so bloody shameful.
There's no way to completely avoid these people or what they say, so apparently I need to deal with it somehow.

I want to have peace in regards to theism and theists. Unfortunately, the only way to do this, has so far been to join them or at least approve of them from a distance. That way, I had some peace in regards to theism and theists, but was otherwise deeply unhappy about doing it.

So in working out my answers to your questions here I ending up saying things I hadn't quite consciously thought and were good for me to hear myself. And I could feel that or experience it that way as I wrote the responses.

See, discussions can be useful, in unpredictable and indirect ways.

 

[greenberg]

Oh, and not to forget: Adstar has again posted in this thread, and has again not answered the questions from the OP.

 

[Grantywanty]

Of course. But as far as Christianity is concerned, it has consistently been my experience that their interpersonal skills and their assumptions are apparently a part of their belief system.

Yes, and it's a good way to get insight into a system if there is a consistant pattern. I just meant that there are even Christians who avoid a lot of unpleasant interpersonal crap.

It can help, tremendously. Sometimes, the input of another person is just what one needs to figure out one's situation.

Well, that's good then. I am not sure it can answer your questions, was more what I meant. I certainly don't want to dissuade you from something that helps or feels good.

That's interesting. I've never thought of it that way.

We all do it, I am pretty sure. We all find relationships, or moments in relationships, where we can reassure ourselves that we are not like what the other person is exhibiting or we have it under control.

I agree. But such a stance pretty much undermines the validity of proselytizing. - But I don't know, perhaps the theists are right, perhaps I am evil and in denial and believing in God is actually really simple. I can't shake that thought.

Thoughts can be in there pretty deep. My sense is thoughts can only stay stuck in there if there is damage or past trauma undealt with. Do with that what you will. If I have done something bad, and I know it, I can feel bad and have self-judgemental thoughts about it. But somehow I find these thoughts don't freeze me. Or suck the life out of me. But thoughts that seem to shut me down seem to have a different purpose. They are not there to develope me, make me face something and more on. They are there to keep me from being myself. To keep me on half an engine. To make me small. To weaken me. I guess I've learned, am learning to feel the difference. Often I have been able to find the root experiences that leave me vulnerable to such thoughts. (and in some of these memories these thoughts were said by someone else first ((or implied))).

The metaphor of getting under such thoughts has helped me at times. What is underneath. Generally, feelings, of course. But I just keep going down and try to be open to what comes up: images, memories. I don't have to beleive they are real in relation to my past or in relation to reality. I just try to stay open to what is underneath. Holding open the experience longer and longer, without necessarily committing myself to forming a conclusion, but not allowed my mind to cut it off.

I think it can also be helpful to see the actual effects of that kind of thought.

In the end of course it will be your choice whether to accept that thought or throw it off.

We can throw off thoughts. Not that it is easy if there is something big underneath.

Like I said elsewhere, (strong) agnosticism is a nightmare to live in.
So, of course, I wish to move off of it.

Yeah, it is hell. To me I think it is good you notice that. But I don't want that to sound callous. It's just that a lot of people don't seem to notice hell, their own private ones. And not oddly enough their not noticing does not make it go away.

I need to make myself more clear - The gut reactions that I trust are mostly only the ones regarding the body. Other gut reactions I don't trust, but am capable of doubting them on and on.
It's only with things like the breath, heartbeat and so on that agnosticism's grip loosens up a bit.

Well, I can see the appeal of Buddhism for you. Myself I have a lot problems with Buddhism, but that is neither here nor there.

I've been doing some Buddhist meditation and studying, for a couple of years. One of the practices is concentrating on the body in and of itself as a frame of reference. Since I am an amateur athlete, that's home territory.

I was thinking about joining a Buddhist group, investigated, but all the ones available struck me as too liberal, too Christian, too Western, too far away from what the Suttas teach, so I decided not to join - and they weren't particularly thrilled to have me anyway ...

Am I guessing right that discipline is important to you?

I don't want to feel terrorized and all confused anymore whenever a Mormon, Jehowa's Witness, Born Again Christian or some such other knocks on my door or I come across them some other way, like in the street, in a social circle, in a film or TV ad.
I hate how a few words from these people throw me off completely. It's so bloody shameful.
There's no way to completely avoid these people or what they say, so apparently I need to deal with it somehow.

Well, let me toss something out. How accepting are you of your own anger? Can you allow yourself to feel hate? I read, Ithink, in one of your posts somewhere, your reference to negative emotions. I don't agree with this idea. I think the emotions have been judged a lot especially the so called negative ones. But that is my belief, fits with my desires and needs. I am not interested in proselytizing life paths. If that feels like your core, that you want to move away from negative emotions (and add to that my guess above that you like discipline) than Buddhism might be just the ticket. And there is some place in Massachussettes or used to be where they did heavy, intensive two week retreats. I will try to remember the name of the group. These guys were serious.

That direction is not mine. In some ways the opposite. But I think it is important to follow what you are drawn to as long as that doesn't include shitting on other people and worse.

On the other hand if you have reservations about Buddhism or about shutting off or disdentifying with 'negative' and other emotions, well I would give a little spiel about that direction.

I bring up the anger because in people who have suppressed anger, perhaps have tended more towards withdrawel/fear/self-doubt reactions, anger can be the missing piece that helps throw off certain thoughts, interpersonal patterns and so on.

I want to have peace in regards to theism and theists. Unfortunately, the only way to do this, has so far been to join them or at least approve of them from a distance. That way, I had some peace in regards to theism and theists, but was otherwise deeply unhappy about doing it.

Well, you've got a contract to assuage your guilt. And fear often goes along with guilt because it is afraid. The contract sounds like you will not reject them and, I am guessing not hate them, because then you would really be evil and they would be right. But you don't embrace them. Limbo. Floating in the void.

And what the fuck do those guys know anyway. How much do they even know about themselves?

Focusing on that contract like you are will dissolve it one way or the other eventually.

It can be your Koan. (as a friendly gesture to the Zen tradition which I still have some fondness for, more what was implied about freedom and spontanaeity than all the sitting around meditating and discipline and so on)

See, discussions can be useful, in unpredictable and indirect ways.

Yeah, yeah. OK. But not in getting the answers to those questions. (adding that comment was cranky and immature but not including it would be misleading and not just about my character)

 

[greenberg]

We all do it, I am pretty sure. We all find relationships, or moments in relationships, where we can reassure ourselves that we are not like what the other person is exhibiting or we have it under control.

Oh, the I'm-better-than-you ego-boosting game ... :bawl:

Thoughts can be in there pretty deep. My sense is thoughts can only stay stuck in there if there is damage or past trauma undealt with. Do with that what you will. If I have done something bad, and I know it, I can feel bad and have self-judgemental thoughts about it. But somehow I find these thoughts don't freeze me. Or suck the life out of me. But thoughts that seem to shut me down seem to have a different purpose. They are not there to develope me, make me face something and more on. They are there to keep me from being myself. To keep me on half an engine. To make me small. To weaken me. I guess I've learned, am learning to feel the difference. Often I have been able to find the root experiences that leave me vulnerable to such thoughts. (and in some of these memories these thoughts were said by someone else first ((or implied))).

I used to think about it this way for some time and it helped; but at some point, it didn't help anymore.
I then came upon the concept of the double bind. The double bind is the worst sledge hammer for the mind. It cannot be rationally argued against, it can only be resolved sometimes, by referring to the metacommunicative level of the communication.

But the sort of double binds as are posed especially by Christianity are impossible to outmaneuver by referring to the metacommunicative level of the communication, because it seems that Christianity took care also of that.
E.g., "If I don't understand something, it's because I am a sinner, not because it wouldn't be true", "My rejection of Christianity is proof that I am bad and Christianity is right - for Christianity says that bad people reject the Truth".

No matter what I do, I lose:
If I reject Christianity, I will go to hell.
If I accept Christianity, I will go to hell - because my acceptance would not be genuine, as I would do it only to avoid hell and without freely loving God.

Am I guessing right that discipline is important to you?

Not as such. I want to accomplish tihngs, I want to get things done, achieve - and if I want that, I need to "get down to it". "Liking discipline" can be another wording for it.

Well, let me toss something out. How accepting are you of your own anger? Can you allow yourself to feel hate?

Oh yes, very much so. But feeling anger or hate doesn't really help anything. They're only useful to me inasmuch that if I am concentrated when I'm angry or hating, I can notice what actually triggered that anger and hate. For the most part, it is the urge to protect myself and the sense that I have so far often done wrong when I didn't protect myself.

In Tibetan Buddhism, they have the concept of vajra wrath - a wrath meant to protect what is precious. You've probably seen some pictures of wrathful deities - some of them are about vajra wrath. It wasn't until I saw that and read about it, that I understood my own anger and hatred better, and stopped feeling so guilty about it.

(Unfortunately, the mainstream idea of Buddhism is one of lovey dovey almost naive niceness - but this is really in grave discord with what the Suttas and some not so popular Buddhist teachings teach.)

But as you can probably conclude - my getting involved with Buddhism raised a lot of Christian objections in my mind. It's a fight.

I want to have peace in regards to theism and theists. Unfortunately, the only way to do this, has so far been to join them or at least approve of them from a distance. That way, I had some peace in regards to theism and theists, but was otherwise deeply unhappy about doing it.

Well, you've got a contract to assuage your guilt. And fear often goes along with guilt because it is afraid. The contract sounds like you will not reject them and, I am guessing not hate them, because then you would really be evil and they would be right. But you don't embrace them. Limbo. Floating in the void.

After I had posted this, I thought about it some more, and asked myself -
What does it mean to have peace in regards to theism and theists?
Over the course of the day, the following answers appeared in my mind and I wrote them down -
- To think I have a system of morality which is superior to theirs.
- To not feel threatened by them.
- To not feel compelled to listen to them.
- To not feel compelled to take them seriously.
- To think they are harmless.
- To think they are wrong.
- To not feel bothered by them.
- To think that the Universe is basically good.
- To think that eventually, all will be fine.

I'll have to work on this.

 

[greenberg]

What do you mean? The distinction is reality is how things really are and wishful thinking is how you would want it to be....pretty simple distinction

Yes, so the dictionary ...


But what about practical application?

How can you make sure that what you know as "God", truly is God, and not simply your projections and wishful thinking?

 

[lightgigantic]

Greenberg

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Therefore you could say that the first issue for discerning notions of god is to have a good grounding in theory - namely what words like "god" actually mean and what is the job description of authentic practitioners - then one has a proper footing for applying one's discrimination
”
Sure, this makes sense.

But there are numerous theisms in this world, each of them purporting to be the only right one.
So what is a person to do? Whose theory to learn? There surely is not enough time in one lifetime for a proper study of all of them.
Nor does it seem feasible to take these things lightly, as if it were a hobby.

once again, a good place to start is theory - despite a myriad of different practices and understandings there is also a foundation of greatly similar foundations to begin with. IOW there tends to be two types of theistic endeavours - peripheral and essential - and discerning the difference between the two can be arrived at through theory and practice

IOW examining the philosophical foundations of what a spiritual path advocates is a good place to start

 

[greenberg]

once again, a good place to start is theory - despite a myriad of different practices and understandings there is also a foundation of greatly similar foundations to begin with. IOW there tends to be two types of theistic endeavours - peripheral and essential - and discerning the difference between the two can be arrived at through theory and practice

IOW examining the philosophical foundations of what a spiritual path advocates is a good place to start

Again, of course, this makes sense, and I've done it for years.

But the impression I am inevitably picking up from this approach is that one's spiritual and philosophical endeavors are to be taken not too seriously; that one is to get into them as if one had eons and eons of time, and as if it wouldn't really make any difference how soon one arrives at a solution.

It's this laxity, this attitude as if these endeavors wouldn't be a matter of life and death, that really really upset me.

 

[Grantywanty]

Oh, the I'm-better-than-you ego-boosting game ... :bawl:

Yes, but it may not be about the other person. You may not care about their reactions. They serve a roll in replacing one of your own internal parts that you are not happy with. YOu don't have to be aware of this.

I used to think about it this way for some time and it helped; but at some point, it didn't help anymore.
I then came upon the concept of the double bind. The double bind is the worst sledge hammer for the mind. It cannot be rationally argued against, it can only be resolved sometimes, by referring to the metacommunicative level of the communication.

But the sort of double binds as are posed especially by Christianity are impossible to outmaneuver by referring to the metacommunicative level of the communication, because it seems that Christianity took care also of that.
E.g., "If I don't understand something, it's because I am a sinner, not because it wouldn't be true", "My rejection of Christianity is proof that I am bad and Christianity is right - for Christianity says that bad people reject the Truth".

No matter what I do, I lose:
If I reject Christianity, I will go to hell.
If I accept Christianity, I will go to hell - because my acceptance would not be genuine, as I would do it only to avoid hell and without freely loving God.

Logic can set off an aha experience. But logic is not going to make those thoughts get off.

Your feeling body will have to reject them intuitively. Or not. If you do not trust your emotions, you will not allow them to throw off the thoughts that make you feel like shit. There are ways to move from not accepting to accepting your emotions.

Not as such. I want to accomplish tihngs, I want to get things done, achieve - and if I want that, I need to "get down to it". "Liking discipline" can be another wording for it.

Or not. I like the way you worded it here much more than discipline which again implies to me one part dominating and judging other parts of the self (forever) rather than moving towards being one person.

Oh yes, very much so. But feeling anger or hate doesn't really help anything. They're only useful to me inasmuch that if I am concentrated when I'm angry or hating, I can notice what actually triggered that anger and hate. For the most part, it is the urge to protect myself and the sense that I have so far often done wrong when I didn't protect myself.

Feeling anger and hate have helped me. But perhaps there are other emotions at various steps in the process that are getting skipped over. Of certain kinds of anger. Also I realized a few years ago that I had been allowed myself to feel anger about something. But it was always in a kind of psychological context of being rebellious and somehow wrong. I allowed the feeling but it was (sublty) judged by me. When it shifted to real acceptance of the feeling, I felt some release both from the people involved and my own guilt.

In Tibetan Buddhism, they have the concept of vajra wrath - a wrath meant to protect what is precious. You've probably seen some pictures of wrathful deities - some of them are about vajra wrath. It wasn't until I saw that and read about it, that I understood my own anger and hatred better, and stopped feeling so guilty about it.

Great. Of course there may be other angers that don't seem OK because they don't seem to fit that model.

(Unfortunately, the mainstream idea of Buddhism is one of lovey dovey almost naive niceness - but this is really in grave discord with what the Suttas and some not so popular Buddhist teachings teach.)

But as you can probably conclude - my getting involved with Buddhism raised a lot of Christian objections in my mind. It's a fight.

Yes, I can imagine.

After I had posted this, I thought about it some more, and asked myself -
What does it mean to have peace in regards to theism and theists?
Over the course of the day, the following answers appeared in my mind and I wrote them down -
- To think I have a system of morality which is superior to theirs.
- To not feel threatened by them.
- To not feel compelled to listen to them.
- To not feel compelled to take them seriously.
- To think they are harmless.
- To think they are wrong.
- To not feel bothered by them.
- To think that the Universe is basically good.
- To think that eventually, all will be fine.

I'll have to work on this.

Sometimes actually saying out loud things like this can be liberating. This is not to condition the mind, like in positive thinking. I find that if I say something I wish I believed but don't it tends to bring up all sorts of emotions and parts of me that doubt that idea hysterically strongly. This can lead to understanding about experiences and patterns that have led to these beliefs as seeming dangerous or impossible.

 

[Why?]

A belief in God is wishful thinking. Faith is wishful thinking. I believe in God, but that doesn't mean I know there is a God. I simply choose to believe there is a God despite the lack of physical evidence. Faith is a belief despite the lack of evidence.

 

[Saquist]

To theists:


How do you distinguish between reality and wishful thinking?


What are your criteria for making this distinction?

How can you make sure that what you know as "God", truly is God, and not simply your projections and wishful thinking?



I'm not asking this question in idleness. To give you my background - I was born into a Christian society and for a long time, I thought I believed in God. But eventually, I realized I wasn't sure whether what I thought was God, truly was God or just my wishful thinking, my fantasy.

So I'm asking those who do believe in God -


How do you distinguish between reality and wishful thinking?
What are your criteria for making this distinction?
How can you make sure that what you know as "God", truly is God, and not simply your projections and wishful thinking?

Firstly my appreciation for your invitation, greenberg.

I must tell you before I begin that Saquist is name I made up. It means to me..."to be in error". It's a reminder that I am fallible... irrevocably human. It's a word that describes me as pessimistic. As a result, I must reconcile that description. This is the reason that I do not regard myself as a theist. I am a realist. I seek to define my world by what is probable, attainable, and not by what is desirable.

That being said.
I think belief is a strange word. Many of us apply this word to decribe understandings that we are certain about. We also use 'belief' to describe what we are UN-certain about. The answer to your question-

How do you distinguish between reality and wishful thinking?

-starts here. Belief...seems to aptly describe the words..."wishful thinking." but we often use "belief" to describe reality. This has to be wrong. They can't be both by my reckoning be the same. SO, I've chosen to seperate the words by their definition...Belief is wishfull thinking and Reality is knowing.

As a direct result of that. I don't believe in God...I know God exist. Yet at one time I had to come to this knowledge and so...I was taught to believe, to have that wishfull thinking that there was only one true God and that he did care for mankind. I was not an easily convinced person. School was a strong influence. I realized that I must challenge both, the secular system and the parental system that was impressing God.

As I examined the wealth of information science gave me, I was fascinated. The bible was very difficult to understand and sometimes it did not make sense to me. However I wasn't one to give up and remain in a comfortable place. To this day...if I want to be sure, If I want to know for sure about anything the answer is to take in knowledge. If I left either side out I would then be biased. So I read...I read books on evolution and studied biology and I read and studied the bible. It took years, From 13 to 22 I read far, far more than I do today.

At some point I had to make a call based on the information I had taken in. Being a realist I decided that science was better equpied to describe what we are, than what we will be or...what we were. I believe in String theory but I know...God exist. I know General Relativity was correct but I don't know if my name is written in the book of life, I hope it is.

Knowing General Relativity was correct despite the theory status was me- being a realist. Hoping to be in God's favor- is me being an optimist. It's a belief. I've done much wrong and so I don't know if my judgement will be favorable or not.

There are certain things you can be sure of even without a blinding obvious clue other things...well.. we just hope for the best.

 

[Adstar]

I never rejected the Christian faith. I have become distant, yes. But I could take up praying and going to church anytime; occasionally, I still do.

Ok i have read your statement in your opening letter and yes i concede that you did not state that you had fully rejected God. I am sorry for that. I apologise for misreading your statement.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Cyperium]

To theists:


How do you distinguish between reality and wishful thinking?


What are your criteria for making this distinction?

How can you make sure that what you know as "God", truly is God, and not simply your projections and wishful thinking?



I'm not asking this question in idleness. To give you my background - I was born into a Christian society and for a long time, I thought I believed in God. But eventually, I realized I wasn't sure whether what I thought was God, truly was God or just my wishful thinking, my fantasy.

So I'm asking those who do believe in God -


How do you distinguish between reality and wishful thinking?
What are your criteria for making this distinction?
How can you make sure that what you know as "God", truly is God, and not simply your projections and wishful thinking?

Try not to make images of God in your head, but only the belief that He is greater than all. That He see you and what you think and what that truly means. He knows you and loves you.

These things can be trusted upon.

In the end you will know God as completly as God knows you.

 

[greenberg]

Oh, the I'm-better-than-you ego-boosting game ...

Yes, but it may not be about the other person. You may not care about their reactions. They serve a roll in replacing one of your own internal parts that you are not happy with. YOu don't have to be aware of this.

Yes, the I'm-better-than-you ego-boosting game often takes place in the privacy of one's own mind, restricted to itself, even though it can think it is about others.

Logic can set off an aha experience. But logic is not going to make those thoughts get off.

That depends a lot how much training in (informal) logics a person has.
Much of our usual thinking is crap trying to convince us it is good, rational, logical reasoning. But with proper education it's possible to exit such loops of poor thinking and not fall for new ones. But once one gets exact like that, another problem arises with great clarity: that of purpose.

Feeling anger and hate have helped me. But perhaps there are other emotions at various steps in the process that are getting skipped over. Of certain kinds of anger. Also I realized a few years ago that I had been allowed myself to feel anger about something. But it was always in a kind of psychological context of being rebellious and somehow wrong. I allowed the feeling but it was (sublty) judged by me. When it shifted to real acceptance of the feeling, I felt some release both from the people involved and my own guilt.

I have to say that talking about emotions this way is too abstract for me to make much of it.
That was another reason I departed from the 12-Step philosophy - it was too abstract for me.

 

[greenberg]

At some point I had to make a call based on the information I had taken in.

Would you say that your distinguishing between reality and imagination is a matter of choice?

 

[greenberg]

A short while back, an older lady stopped me on the street. She offered me a magazine, I'm not sure what the title was because she had her hand over it. But judging from her approach and that she was also holding a Bible, she must have been a Born Again Christian or a Jehowah's Witness. I declined and set off to go on my way, but then stopped and we had the following conversation:

I: You believe in God, right?
She: Yes, I believe in God, and I believe the Bible is His word [points to the Bible in her hands].
I: How do you know that what you believe about God truly is about God and isn't simply your imagination?
She: The Bible is the Word of God and everything that is in it is true. I keep to the Bible ...
I: But how do you know you're not simply imagining things?
She: I have no imagination! [turns away and walks away]


I suppose she must have been either enlightened, or unable to imagine that things could also be different than what she thinks they are.

 

[greenberg]

Try not to make images of God in your head, but only the belief that He is greater than all. That He see you and what you think and what that truly means. He knows you and loves you.

These things can be trusted upon.

In the end you will know God as completly as God knows you.

I don't know if those things can be trusted uppon. I have not died yet, I don't yet know what the outcome of God's Judgment over me will be.

Should the outcome of that Judgment be my getting send to eternal hellfire, then having trusted that God loves me would be similar to having trusted a white shark not to bite me.