Your thoughts on God and religion

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by patlajan Anyone that is absolutly sure of anything spiritual can't be right because being "correct" is impossible. But their need to have something to believe in is also what makes them human.

And there we have it, an attempt to discredit an individuals spiritual transcendence by appealing to the belief of ones own state of unbelief, and saying essentially that they are not right because they don't know. So what each individuals conception of God or the supernatural or the spiritual is, is based on their knowledge and capacity, and each has a different conception of God or the spiritual, so how can you know that they are all wrong or the concept of God is beyond our mind? If it's beyond our mind why can we conceive of such an entity indeed is worth asking? What you're ultimately probing is the proof that you seek, since you are approaching this with a materialistic worldview.

Speaking from a personal point of view here, I have to disagree with you assuming that the belief each individual holds is wrong or right, since you are using materialistic criteria to judge something non-material. Your reasoning is not new since it was most vividly described by Freud in "Future of Illusion". He writes, "We shall tell ourselves that it would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence and if there were a moral order in the universe and an afterlife, but it is very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be." The belief in God or the spiritual ultimately stems from the belief that there is a moral law which one has transgressed and seeks forgivenness and reconciliation, that morality is indeed objective, and that they may have been different religions at different times, they essentially spoke the same in different allegories and symbols and uttered forth the same truism to confuse the mind. Freuds letters seem to suggest that he had a deep seated desire for a belief in God or a creator.

[PASAMONSTER]

I'm back
Well ofcourse there is a God!
We all believe in God but call God different names Allah, Jehovah, Vishnu, Astvats.

On the other hand, I believe religion is a poison and it corrupts human beings. Religion is created by man to interpret the words of God, so whatever man believes God meant to say, each in their own favor ofcourse.

I believe each person should believe in their heart and thats enough, belonging to a religion isnt necessary infact it contradicts with the very idea of believing in GOD!

ahhh well thats my 2 cents....but what do I know I'm a gun totting freak LOL huh guys LOL

[patlajan]

Originally posted by Anonymouse And there we have it, an attempt to discredit an individuals spiritual transcendence by appealing to the belief of ones own state of unbelief, and saying essentially that they are not right because they don't know. So what each individuals conception of God or the supernatural or the spiritual is, is based on their knowledge and capacity, and each has a different conception of God or the spiritual, so how can you know that they are all wrong or the concept of God is beyond our mind? If it's beyond our mind why can we conceive of such an entity indeed is worth asking? What you're ultimately probing is the proof that you seek, since you are approaching this with a materialistic worldview.

Speaking from a personal point of view here, I have to disagree with you assuming that the belief each individual holds is wrong or right, since you are using materialistic criteria to judge something non-material. Your reasoning is not new since it was most vividly described by Freud in "Future of Illusion". He writes, "We shall tell ourselves that it would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence and if there were a moral order in the universe and an afterlife, but it is very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be." The belief in God or the spiritual ultimately stems from the belief that there is a moral law which one has transgressed and seeks forgivenness and reconciliation, that morality is indeed objective, and that they may have been different religions at different times, they essentially spoke the same in different allegories and symbols and uttered forth the same truism to confuse the mind. Freuds letters seem to suggest that he had a deep seated desire for a belief in God or a creator.

Not all instances of God are moral. The Greek and Roman gods were not moral, or exemplary. And where did I say believe in a "wrong" or "right" on this issue?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Mousy Believing or not believing in God is purely a subjective matter, and ultimately depends on what world view you take. If you take the materialistic world view, which was advocated by many such as Freud, Marx, etc., the only thing that there exists is what we know and what we can establish with research and testability, indeed according to most of the scientific establishment. One does not have to assume religion in order to be of the spiritual persuasion that yes there is a dualistic nature of existence and a belief in God and another life perhaps.

Going so far as to say that it is necessarily a subjective matter would make nearly irrelevant any discussion, would it not? I see you and Pat going back and forth about nothing later on here. He has no reason to say either way whether or not people have had transcendent spiritual experiences, and neither can you. The best you can if this is the basis of your belief is to hope that you have your own, and stand around waiting, unless you think there is something one can do to facilitate such an event. Do you?

Originally posted by Mousy Most people who reject God do so on the account of the belief in it not being "scientific", in other words not yielding to the laws of testability which come with science, whether its biology or physics, which deal with the material world. But how does one expect to answer the spiritual question of God using criteria for a materialistic world? One can only assume that all knowledge comes from science and "proving" and that no knowledge comes from the spiritual world view.

Well, clearly that's false, and yes, I know that you agree. Nobody can prove scientifically that I believe the state of Minnesota exists and yet I still do (sorry for the lame example).

Originally posted by Mousy For me personally, I have gone through my phase of not believing in God. I have come to find that, no matter what earthly pleasures or ideologies or isms or rewards I have been exposed to, those things that offered you material bliss and eternity have never and cannot satisfy me in the way that my spiritual bond with the spiritual world exists, and which I gain through reading and analyzing and enriching myself.

This doesn't seem to have much to do with God or religion. I'm glad that you are in touch with your own spirit, but the question here is whether or not there exists any kind of a larger spirit that presumably created this universe and is at least partially responsible for certain states of affairs.

Originally posted by Mousy Ultimately its a conflict within your own self that is questioning the existence of a God or something beyond our intelligence, a force if you will, no matter how you hyphenate it. One doesn't have to subscribe to a particular religion or sect to be spiritually involved with God or general spirituality and metaphysical stuff. Of course I see many people without even examining the main monotheistic religions of the world, comparing them, studying them, but outright rejecting them because of the church and how it forces people to believe in something that you cant prove. For one, we must distinguish between Churchianity and what the actual books of the said religion speak of.

Different books say different things. I would prefer to evaluate any given religion based on its truth value. Since none of the religions I've evaluated seemed to have any, I have avoided religions. In speaking with religious people, they appeal almost entirely to their own experiences, which are patently unreliable. As I have had no spiritual experience that goes beyond my own spirit, on what am I to base a belief, let alone a belief system?

Originally posted by Mousy Our political conditioning has taught us that it is wrong to be spiritual or enhance your spirit, and to only focus on the material world, and transcendence through materialism, by attaching yourself to ideologies and isms and external institutions that promise this or that reward. The bulk of humanity has for the most part lost its spirituality.

Political conditioning or not, it doesn't mean that it's wrong. Now don't get into an argument over this, because I personally deplore materialism and would love to see people nurture their spirit more than their pocketbook, but still, it hardly does you any service to dismiss something as "political conditioning" as if it suddenly has no creedence.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Well, clearly that's false, and yes, I know that you agree. Nobody can prove scientifically that I believe the state of Minnesota exists and yet I still do (sorry for the lame example).

What are you trying to say here? Are you trying to say that using the scientific method as a barometer of judgement in whether or not it can answer questions about the spiritual world view is ok? That somehow it is not an assumption that all knowledge comes science and reason? For if you are, I must disagree, for like I said, the two are two different realms. Faith begins where reason ends. Or maybe I misunderstood what you said completely?

Originally posted by loseyourname This doesn't seem to have much to do with God or religion. I'm glad that you are in touch with your own spirit, but the question here is whether or not there exists any kind of a larger spirit that presumably created this universe and is at least partially responsible for certain states of affairs.

Actually this has quite alot to do with God ( however you wish to define and hyphenate it ) than you think. My desire for something non earthly suggests to me that there is something beyond our material world and that I seek it; this relationship with the creator. To quote C.S. Lewish:

"Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex." He then implies that we all have a deep inner desire for a relationship with the creator and an existence beyond this life. He writes further, "If I find myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing."

What I find in the arguments of you and patlajan is the need to try to make the belief or disbelief in God from other people conform to you, since if you yourself have not experienced a spiritual moment of exaltation, or some satisfaction of God, that no one else must have. This argument is best evidenced by Freud, who asserted that our belief or disbelief in God goes to our early childhood. So if he didn't believe in God, others must be delusional or suffering from some kind of neurosis. He stated that we all have conflict with our parents and therefore a probable rejection of authority, whether it be your father, or God. Freud had described his negative feelings toward his father as a child. Freud published in an article a longing or desire to walk in the woods with his father as he did as a child. Of course this isn't to suggest that we have problems withour fathers ( maybe we do ), but it is to show that he tried to marginalize everyones view into some "problem" they had as a "child", since he had a problem with his father, and in his mind there was no God, everyone else must be suffering from some sort of neurosis through what he refers to as the transference object. One can indeed wonder if for Freud, there was no God, and indeed the question had been solved, for if there was no God, why did Freud spend a whole lifetime with the bulk of his work trying to answer such a question? One can say the same about the atheists who constantly write whether or not there is a God if indeed in their minds the question has been answered. Can this be anything but some form of desire wishing for God to be there?

[spiral]

Humans created God, not the other way around.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by spiral Humans created God, not the other way around.

Of course I disagree, but who created humans?

[spiral]

Then if God created humans who created God?

And if it can be said that no one created God, God, just simply WAS, then the same can be said for humans.

[SexyAries]

and you can go on and on and on with theories and more theories but no one will ever get anywhere. We dont have answers.

Therefore, I personally go with Cabala. It makes more sense, i herd about it from people and decided to research and found that from all that i have looked in to, Cabala made the most sense.

[spiral]

I've herad of cabala/kabbalah

I don't know much about it, it rooted form Judaism?