What is the starting point?

[NMSquirrel]

It seems you have quite a considerable trust in God, and that this trust is a given to you, you can think of it regardless of religion.

Do you remember how you have acquired this trust in God?

i have always felt that god was in my life,
when i was young my mom used church as a babysitting service (she rarely attended) even at that young age, i could see the inconsistancies of what they were preaching and the actions they showed..this was discouraging..

i believe god had/has put ppl and situations in my life to teach me what he was about..
alot of those ppl were never main stream religious ppl..
it is through these things that solidified my belief

as far as acquiring this trust..it is more of a matter of choosing to trust..
given the choice between trusting ppl and trusting god..i choose to trust in god..ppl tend to be self serving and any advice they give is suceptible to their own humanity and their own goals..(this was learned through a period of my life where i adopted a 'do as your told' attitude and found not matter what criteria that was set before me that i had surpased..i was still wrong..)

i tend to question everything..and alot of those answers i get tend to line up with what god is trying to teach us through the bible..

now i know that alot of my posts tend to speak against ppl..but thats not quite true..its more of a speaking against a persons own humanity (the desire to fullfill ones own needs first, whether consciencely or subconsciencely)
there are ppl out there who do strive to keep their own humanity in check,these ppl are hard to spot as they tend to not make waves,so to speak.

 

[NMSquirrel]

i don't know if this is off topic or not..
but i think it is relevent...

it concerns Genesis and the story of creation..

alot of ppl see this story as a literal translation..
and when adam and eve bit the apple,they view it as a failure on adam and eves part..(some even blame god for this failure)
i see it slightly differently

I believe god created us with the ability to choose for ourselves,if he wanted the 'do as your told' attitude he would have been happy with just the angels(they don't have a choice,they have to obey)
now he needed a way to test his creation to confirm the ability to choose,so he set up the apple test to see if we can choose..we passed that test..

alot of arguments against god usually are based on humanity's capabilities of making bad choices,which they tend to blame god ,forgetting that we make our own choices..its not god's fault that we do evil..

 

[shichimenshyo]

oops double post

 

[scifes]

:bravo::bravo::bravo:
totally agree squirrel..

except with this bit:

now he needed a way to test his creation to confirm the ability to choose,so he set up the apple test to see if we can choose..we passed that test..

 

[NMSquirrel]

:bravo::bravo::bravo:
totally agree squirrel..

except with this bit:

how so?

 

[shichimenshyo]

alot of arguments against god usually are based on humanity's capabilities of making bad choices,which they tend to blame god ,forgetting that we make our own choices..its not god's fault that we do evil..

If god is the creator of evil then god has some part in the evil doings of mankind.

and it was not an apple.

 

[NMSquirrel]

If god is the creator of evil then god has some part in the evil doings of mankind.

this is a controversial subject (did god create evil)
maybe he needed to, so we would have something to choose between?
dunno..

and it was not an apple.

you said that already but haven't elaborated..

 

[shichimenshyo]

Why does god need anything to choose between?



"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat"

 

[scifes]

how so?

god wouldn't create us to test or confirm anything..IMO anyway..

first he wouldn't need to test anything because he knows the outcome already,

secondly the test would have already given the result, why keep it going till now?

 

[NMSquirrel]

god wouldn't create us to test or confirm anything..IMO anyway..

first he wouldn't need to test anything because he knows the outcome already,

maybe the results of that test were not for him but for us..
we needed to know we have the ability to choose..

secondly the test would have already given the result, why keep it going till now?

look how many ppl blame god for their own choices..some of us still have not learned to accept the responsibility of our own choices.

 

[Doreen]

Finding (abstract, general) philosophical grounds for believing in God is easy.
There is plenty of texts and arguments available from various sources.

But there seems to be this enormous gray area of "Which religion to choose? Where to start?"

I suppose that in traditional theistic societies, this gray area was very small or didn't exist at all.
But nowadays, it seems like it is enormous, dominant, and many people find themselves in it.

I was able to find only very little about how to make this choice - "Which religion to choose? Where to start?"
There is the odd quiz at Beliefnet or Yahoo Answers and such about which religion one has a tendency toward. But apart from that, there seems to be no neutral authority that one could consult about this choice.

The individual religions of course provide their own reasons and ways of doing things. But they all seem to require quite a considerable initial commitment.

Reading scriptures or participating in the activities of religious groups cannot be done with indifference (at least not for long), with an experimental attitude of "I'll see in time whether this is true or not".

At least I have found myself unable to take an experimental approach to it. Instead, I have felt that a considerable commitment would need to be made on my part if I were to continue with the studies and participation. But I found myself unable to make such a commitment.


So what would be that initial appropriate attitude or outlook as one sets out on the path of searching for the Absolute truth?

In a sense it sounds to me like you are trying to make a choice by taking yourself out of the equation. How can I choose objectively?

What are you drawn to participate in?

If you are not drawn to participate it will be very hard to make a commitment - or to translate this away from a neo-contractual conception - how will you keep being drawn to it?

You could then ask

but is that a good way to base a choice in religion, on my desires or interests, that is? Which is keeping the bird's eye view of self and world and God.

If it is not, God really messed up, and in a way that seems very hard to redeem.

Also you can allow your being drawn to evolve. You may choose poorly the first (few) time(s). But you can learn from that.

If the opening presumption is that you cannot trust yourself, there is no hope anyway, so the issue is moot.

 

[scifes]

maybe the results of that test were not for him but for us..
we needed to know we have the ability to choose..



look how many ppl blame god for their own choices..some of us still have not learned to accept the responsibility of our own choices.

ooooooh:idea:
good point, didn't think of it before. i'll take note of it,

 

[wynn]

In a sense it sounds to me like you are trying to make a choice by taking yourself out of the equation. How can I choose objectively?

What are you drawn to participate in?

If you are not drawn to participate it will be very hard to make a commitment - or to translate this away from a neo-contractual conception - how will you keep being drawn to it?

You could then ask

but is that a good way to base a choice in religion, on my desires or interests, that is? Which is keeping the bird's eye view of self and world and God.

If it is not, God really messed up, and in a way that seems very hard to redeem.

Also you can allow your being drawn to evolve. You may choose poorly the first (few) time(s). But you can learn from that.

If the opening presumption is that you cannot trust yourself, there is no hope anyway, so the issue is moot.

Thank, you, this quite precisely sums up my quandary!

I indeed tend to think that I have to choose objectively, by taking myself out of the equation.
(It is precisely the approach espoused by Western science.)

I don't know any other way.

Going by my likes and dislikes feels flimsy and insubstantial, unjustified, wrong.

 

[wynn]

i have always felt that god was in my life,

Well, I started out by being called a pagan and stigmatized for not being baptized as an infant, I was convinced I would burn in hell for all eternity even before I was old enough to spell my name.
If anything, my earliest thought of God was that God is a monster who is to be feared.

I suppose this says something ...

 

[wynn]

("Calvinist elitism" = predetermination; God predetermined who will go to heaven and who will burn in hell for all eternity, and souls can do absolutely nothing about it; no matter how much one may want to go to heaven or work for it, if one is predetermined to go to hell, one will go to hell.)

Well if that's what one is going to accept as one's line of thinking, the scope for action is pretty dismal

Sure, but my question was whether it is possible to come to an alternative conviction within a foreseeable time.
Although I suppose you'll say it is.

thats ok
the next q should be what is the action that follows belief in god or accepting jesus or whatever they are advocating as the esteemed conclusion

Nothing special. One is just supposed to believe and endure to the end. Grit one's teeth and endure to the end.

i think there is an element of social discourse which is just intrinsic to (material) existence. People are always offering unwarranted praise or criticism on anyone and everyone, so you just have to take it all with a grain of salt.

Sure, but in the case of devotees, it is different. If a run-of-the-mill person takes offense at something I did, this is different than if a devotee takes offense at something I did. There are grave consequences for offending a devotee.

Then why complain of the limitations or slowness of what you deem as your current capability?

Because I don't want to go to hell.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Sure, but in the case of devotees, it is different. If a run-of-the-mill person takes offense at something I did, this is different than if a devotee takes offense at something I did. There are grave consequences for offending a devotee.

this is where i begin to hate the 'religion', when the ppl inside make it all about themselves..
to be offended is a very selfish act and does not consider the other person..

Going by my likes and dislikes feels flimsy and insubstantial, unjustified, wrong.

mental,emotional,physical,spiritual...
IOW sounds like this is a focus on your emotional state of being..

If anything, my earliest thought of God was that God is a monster who is to be feared.

i think this is what some users here are argueing about, by saying indoctrination should be criminalized.this is how you were taught..

Because I don't want to go to hell.

no one wants to..
we can't trust ppl to tell us whether or not we are going to hell,they don't KNOW,only god does..(of course the extreme cases give us a pretty good clue..)

BTW i think there is more to those last three statements than i can see..
(three different posts)

Going by my likes and dislikes feels flimsy and insubstantial, unjustified, wrong.
If anything, my earliest thought of God was that God is a monster who is to be feared.
Because I don't want to go to hell.

 

[thinking]

Finding (abstract, general) philosophical grounds for believing in God is easy.
There is plenty of texts and arguments available from various sources.

But there seems to be this enormous gray area of "Which religion to choose? Where to start?"

I suppose that in traditional theistic societies, this gray area was very small or didn't exist at all.
But nowadays, it seems like it is enormous, dominant, and many people find themselves in it.

I was able to find only very little about how to make this choice - "Which religion to choose? Where to start?"
There is the odd quiz at Beliefnet or Yahoo Answers and such about which religion one has a tendency toward. But apart from that, there seems to be no neutral authority that one could consult about this choice.

The individual religions of course provide their own reasons and ways of doing things. But they all seem to require quite a considerable initial commitment.

Reading scriptures or participating in the activities of religious groups cannot be done with indifference (at least not for long), with an experimental attitude of "I'll see in time whether this is true or not".

At least I have found myself unable to take an experimental approach to it. Instead, I have felt that a considerable commitment would need to be made on my part if I were to continue with the studies and participation. But I found myself unable to make such a commitment.

So what would be that initial appropriate attitude or outlook as one sets out on the path of searching for the Absolute truth?

why not the Human Spirit ?

less confusion

its funny that when Humans look to a Spiritual experience they always look outside their own being

the Vikings , Japanese , Native Indians , to name a few , are all based on their ancestors

 

[lightgigantic]

Sure, but my question was whether it is possible to come to an alternative conviction within a foreseeable time.
Although I suppose you'll say it is.

Sure you can. But since convictions rest upon action which rests upon thinking, no one can really deliver that except you

Nothing special. One is just supposed to believe and endure to the end. Grit one's teeth and endure to the end.

Since convictions that require a large degree of teeth gritting are more trying than others, that tend to be resourced by a greater degree of thinking (otherwise one's commitment to them will be far from perennial)

Sure, but in the case of devotees, it is different. If a run-of-the-mill person takes offense at something I did, this is different than if a devotee takes offense at something I did. There are grave consequences for offending a devotee.

Sure, but if a person is taking upon themselves that great offense is warranted by one disbelieving them or one not falling in with the latitude of their unilateral incrimination, one has to wonder about the gravity of the consequences.

Just like we accept the gravity of advice from persons such as car mechanics and doctors according to our (hopefully) accurate estimations of their qualification, the same holds with devotees. This is not to say that we make a habit of rough dealings with the less qualified. In fact, if you read NOI, you can see that there are three general modes of attitude according to the type of devotee. Unreserved surrender is not recommended in all cases, or even intimate friendship, but respect is.

Because I don't want to go to hell.

why not?

56 I shall voluntarily choose to live in hell if there my ears may be filled with the supremely blissful glories of Sri Vrndavana, or if I may sing those glories, or if those glories will enter the pathway of my memory. If I cannot do any of these things then even the loving service of Lord Narayana in Vaikuntha will give no happiness to me.




(actually I think I made the point earlier that being negatively geared - ie "I'll do X so I can avoid Y" - is nowhere near as effective as being positively geared. Our constitutional position is one of attraction. Its only a detail whether that object of attraction is god's internal or external potency)

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

Good question. Again, I don't know.

I think you would benefit from knowing.

But in an ideal society, such propaganda would not take place, would?
But we do not live in an ideal society, there is that propaganda, and there is that gray zone.

There is no such thing as an ideal society, it would be too diverse (to say the least).
That propaganda is there to change or confuse our minds, and to change our focus, and perception. Just a tiny diversion, or dilution of the truth, will increase in potency over time, and there soon comes a point where we become out of touch.

In an ideal society, going to a church/temple or some religiousa event, or practicing a religion at home would be normal, a given; nowadays it is connected with a host of issues about choice, commitment, availability, possible negative consequences ...
Not rarely, one has to choose between practice of religion and one's job.

It is still normal, in other parts of the world (other than the west).

Financial issues,

Why do you need finance to be part of a religion?

Given how the members there treated me, it was apparent I would have to fully accept that religion, even after my first visit there, if I were to go there again. No room for inquiry or experimenting or testing.

Let's say you need some academic qualification in order to get a particular
job. And let's say there were a number of places you could enroll into, to sit these exams. Then let's say that you went to one, and found that you didn't like something about that institute. Would you not try to find one, where the atmosphere was conducive to learning and achieving? Even if it was of the same institutional body?

I don't know. It seems I have always had it anyway.

Maybe it's time probe a little deeper.
Don't you think?
How do you know institutions are what you need at this moment in time?
Maybe people can see that you really do need to make a commitment in order
to know the reason behind these urges and feelings.
Maybe they have been in a similar position.

jan.

 

[wynn]

Financial issues,

Why do you need finance to be part of a religion?

Because being a member and traveling to temples costs money, considerable amounts of money.

Let's say you need some academic qualification in order to get a particular job. And let's say there were a number of places you could enroll into, to sit these exams. Then let's say that you went to one, and found that you didn't like something about that institute. Would you not try to find one, where the atmosphere was conducive to learning and achieving? Even if it was of the same institutional body?

Common sense and practice of religion are two very different things.

Would the members of one group not see it as betrayal and offense if someone who first visited them went to another group? Of course they would, and they would tell the other groups about this offensive person.

Also, such changes cost money, as religious groups are not easily available.

How do you know institutions are what you need at this moment in time?

I don't know. Those at the institution certainly told me so, on more occasions. Sometimes, in anything but a friendly tone.

Maybe people can see that you really do need to make a commitment in order
to know the reason behind these urges and feelings.

A commitment to what?

Maybe they have been in a similar position.

Well, they definitely don't look like that to me. They seem to present themselves in a manner suggesting, sometimes directly saying, that they always knew, or knew immediately upon first contact with the new religion, and that this is how it is supposed to be.